Mike Reagan wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> To those of you that live in Virginia, Maryland, USA area. We have
> asked Altium host one of our IPC Designer's Council Meetings in June
> 2008. We are working with Altium on exact details. The topic will be
> centered around the FPGA tools and integration tools. More information
> can be found on the IPC website: http://dcchapters.ipc.org/ches/ If
> you wish to attend the first meeting please RSVP me at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> FYI, The AirBus A380, largest passenger plane in the world has several
> systems designed by Fairchild Controls Corp. using Altium Designer. I
> had some problems with a bad install but after a re-install, version
> 6.7 is a very solid program. All the discussions about jumping to later
> versions....6.x is better than 99SE. Make the move and don't look
> back.
>
> Mike Reagan
After reading your report that AirBus A380 planes incorporate systems designed
by Altium Designer, I will refrain from responding that I would never want to
travel in any of them - but bear in mind that I have assessed that you take the
responsibility of getting the design of those systems correct in a serious and
professional manner.
Although you may well believe that Altium Designer 6 is superior to Protel 99
SE, there *shouldn't* be any problems with installing any applications which
have been truly implemented to a really high standard (assuming of course that
there are no shortcomings with any PC on which such applications are being
installed). I don't know if AD6 is less problematic in that regard, but there
are definitely issues with AD2004 (and as can be confirmed by anyone who uses
(the Microsoft utility) Orca to "validate" the Setup.msi file provided with
that version).
I don't doubt for one minute that Altium Designer 6 provides more functionality
and features than Protel 99 SE - but I am still not convinced that the
*quality* of the software is higher than that of previous versions. Here are
*just* two really "toxic" issues which have plagued previous versions, and
which I would consider truly deserving of being rectified in Altium Designer 6.
But *have* they actually been rectified though?
- What is displayed when Single Layer Mode is selected (or at least the
"classic" option for that feature, in which objects on all non-current layers
are generally not displayed), and the current layer is one of the "negative"
layers (i.e. one of the Internal Plane, or Paste Mask, or Solder Mask layers)?
In past versions, there were issues with displaying details associated with
pads and vias. Details of *all* objects on the copper layer (on the same side
of the PCB) were displayed when one of the Paste Mask layers was the current
layer, and when the current layer was one of the Solder Mask layers, details of
vias on the Solder Mask layer concerned were not displayed. As far as I am
concerned, if there are any vias which are *not* masked, then I want to be able
to see that, but when those details are not displayed, it takes more effort to
determine whether there really are any unmasked vias within a PCB file. And the
(Zoom ->) Redraw Current Layer
command has also really sucked in at least previous versions (while SLM is
selected); instead of displaying just the details on whichever layer is the
current layer, the details on all of the "negative" layers (which are currently
selected for viewing) are *also* displayed at the same time. And worse yet, any
object with a true Selected and/or "DRCError" state is also displayed at the
time, and even when its associated layer is *not* currently selected for
viewing (or at least in Protel 99SE; right now, I don't know about any
following versions).
- Have DRC checking procedures been refined to reduce the number of unreported
errors, and the number of "false alarms", and especially as far checking
details on the Internal Plane layers are concerned? As just one example,
"blowout" patterns (associated with vias and through-hole pads) can partition
regions on Internal Plane layers in such a way to result in nets which are not
fully routed; do the DRC procedures now detect that, or at least whenever a
"batch mode" DRC check is run? I have also known cases (in AD2004) when
"non-simple" pads have incorrectly generated Clearance errors on particular
copper layers because it looked like the properties of such pads on *other*
copper layers were being used during the checking procedures. And such pads
have also *failed* to generate DRC errors in cases when tracks have been routed
to them on copper layers in which the dimensions of the pads (on those layers)
were less than the diameters of those pads' holes...
I consider that the onus remains on the designer to ensure that the design of
any PCB file is fully satisfactory - and that the same is also true for any
files which are generated from any PCB file, such as Gerber files and NC Drill
files (as just two examples). But when DRC checking procedures are not as good
as they could and should be, then the life of designers becomes that much more
difficult, as they then need to spend much more time assessing which reported
DRC errors are "crying wolf", and which ones *aren't* - and if there are a lot
of "false alarms", then there is also a greater danger of missing errors which
really are problematic.
Am I a disgruntled ex-employee? Yes I am - but any engineer who turned in work
as shoddy as the software that Altium has "shipped" to its customers could
usually expect to be sacked in pretty short order - and perhaps end up in
prison if any aspect of a project which had been overlooked subsequently
resulted in members of the general public losing their lives (or even being
injured). However, I, and others who also attempted to "raise the bar", were
let go, and (supposedly) because Altium was losing money at the time (an
outcome which could hardly be regarded as surprising when the quality of the
software being released at that time is taken into account). But those
"responsible" for quality control remain at the helm; what an inspiration to
their shareholders, customers, and (remaining) employees.
But as long as their (prevailing) customers continue to accept what they are
being served up with, and don't complain more vigorously than what they have
been doing, I would find it very difficult to believe that the quality of the
software would, or actually has, improved to any significant extent. However I
have now had a gutsful of trying to improve matters; my efforts in that regard
have not been given the level of respect which I would regard as appropriate,
and it seems that most of the (prevailing) users are nowhere near as bothered
as I am about numerous defects in the software which simply shouldn't be there.
And as I suspect that various people on this list think that I am grumbling
without good cause, and are not of an inclination to back me when I refer to
matters concerning software quality, I've had enough. Good luck when it comes
to trying to improve matters, as I won't be making any more efforts myself.
Regards,
Geoff Harland.
____________________________________________________________________________________
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]
