While it has been a few days since the previous most recent contribution to
this thread, everyone should note that there can *also* be problems when
attempting to reopen files within a *later* version of Protel/Altium Designer
than the version which had been used to create those files previously.
I can't provide a comprehensive list of all the problematic version-pairs, but
I know that there can be problems with opening PCB files in Protel 99 SE that
previously been created using AdvPcb 2.8 (not necessarily all of the time, but
still problematic in some cases). And I have also had problems with opening
files in Altium Designer 2004 (SP4) that had previously been created using
Protel 99 SE (SP6).
More specifically, the scopes for some of the design rules had not been
specified correctly. Nobody has ever explicitly confirmed it to me, but I have
still inferred that the intention behind providing various keywords that have
been provided for use within queries was to enable scopes of design rules
specified within PCB files created using Protel 99 SE to be re-specified when
such files are subsequently opened within a later version.
Regrettably though ... , it looks like not all of the associated "spadework"
was done when it came to (the source code) processing the scopes and subscopes
of each design rule, and what has actually happened instead is yet another
instance of the "near enough is good enough" mentality that is all too frequent
within the software.
It is one thing for there to be issues when attempting to resave a file for
subsequent use within an *earlier* version (as earlier versions don't
necessarily have all of the functionality and features of later versions), or
when exporting or importing files associated with other applications (as other
applications might not support some of AD's features, and vice versa). However,
there should *never* be any issues with reopening any files in any *later*
version; while details of how some functionality is actually implemented can
change between different versions (such as how to specify the scopes of design
rules, as one example), there should still never be any *loss* of functionality
when using a more recent version.
In the case of the PCB file which I had problems with, I was able to rectify
the situation by re-specifying the scopes of each (previously problematic)
design rule as required. But the point still remains that I *shouldn't* have
needed to have done that; the scopes of each design rule *should* have been
specified correctly, by the software, at the time that the PCB file was been
reopened.
Given the motivation, I doubtless could provide details of the particular
subscopes which I had problems with. However, I have had a f*cking gutsful of
spending considerable amounts of time in comprehensively documenting defects
within the software (with the objective of making life as easy as possible for
whoever would subsequently be assigned the task of rectifying each such issue),
only to have my efforts subsequently ignored (or even rejected) on all too many
occasions. And as such, I am instead opting for alerting others that there are
issues in this regard, and that this is yet another instance of something else
to be on the lookout for whenever using AD (or any of the earlier versions).
Does anyone consider that AD 6 is really much better than AD 2004? I know that
more features have been provided, and I gather that some of the issues which
afflicted AD 2004 have supposedly now been rectified, but is the *quality* of
AD 6 (as far as bugginess is concerned) higher than that of previous versions?
Based on past form, I would find it very difficult to accept that there have
been any significant improvements in that regard.
Regards,
Geoff Harland.
Brad Velander wrote:
> Danger, Danger Will Robinson!
>
> P98 to P99SE: A few patches, additional Mech layers,
> new rules, new capabilities, different ways of handling
> some existing functionality, etc., etc..
>
> To export from DXP/AD to P99SE, use the save as function
> and file extension *.PCB (version 4).
>
> Be warned, exporting from DXP/AD to P99SE can/will loose
> some rules and other capabilities that were added to DXP/AD
> and just weren't around/available in P99SE. (i.e. polygon cutouts,
> rules that just weren't available in P99SE and may effect a lot of
> the design.) It may look the same until you actually repour items,
> do a DRC, etc. in P99SE.
>
> But there is absolutely no truth to the 'rumor' that P98 is closer
> to DXP than P99SE, just the opposite. Just think about it.
>
> Sincerely,
> Brad Velander
> Senior PCB Designer
> Northern Airborne Technology
> #14 - 1925 Kirschner Road,
> Kelowna, BC, V1Y 4N7.
> tel (250) 763-2232 ext. 225
> fax (250) 762-3374
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
