[PEDA] Many similar Sheet Symbols
Matt.VanDeWerken@csiro.au
Matt.VanDeWerken at csiro.au
Mon Nov 6 01:53:06 CST 2006
s/feature/bug/g, perhaps?
Matthew van de Werken - Electronics Engineer
CSIRO E&M - Mining Geoscience Group
1 Technology Court - Pullenvale - 4069
p: (07) 3327 4142 * f: (07) 3327 4455 * e: matt.vandewerken at csiro.au
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children."
-- Native American Proverb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEDA-bounces at techservinc.com
> [mailto:PEDA-bounces at techservinc.com] On Behalf Of Phillip Stevens
> Sent: Saturday, 4 November 2006 1:07 AM
> To: Geoff Harland; Protel EDA Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Many similar Sheet Symbols
>
>
> Hi Geoff,
>
> As a user of AD, I'd first like to say "Thank You" for
> "fighting the good fight" on our behalf, while you were there.
>
> I'm currently reading Beginning Python, by Magnus Lie
> Hetland, Apress. There is a nice quote from page 343 that I
> thought you might appreciate:
>
> "...it can be useful to adopt the attitude that a feature
> doesn't really exist (or isn't really a feature) until you
> have a test for it."
>
> Friday, November 3, 2006, 4:16:10 AM, you wrote:
>
> > I'm *not* advocating that users *don't* use the
> Multi-Channel feature
> > in Altium Designer - but I *am* recommending that users should
> > exercise prudence whenever they do use it.
>
> > There are a number of options which can be selected when
> that feature
> > is used, ... and some of them might not work as well as others. For
> > instance, if an Alphabetical option is selected instead of
> a Numeric
> > option, there could be problems if the design incorporates
> more than
> > 26 channels. With a 26th channel identified as "Z", the
> best outcome
> > would be for a 27th channel to be identified as "AA" (using a
> > "numbering" scheme like that used to identify the columns within
> > spreadsheet files), and *maybe* that has now been
> implemented, ... but
> > in all of the versions of AD which I have seen, the 27th channel is
> > identified as "[" instead (with that character being the character
> > that immediately follows the "Z" character within the ASCII set of
> > characters). (As such, a 63th channel could be identified
> by the "DEL"
> > ("Delete") character, which could really cause some grief.)
>
> > And while it is possible to define "bussed" netlist labels
> of a "one
> > dimensional" nature (e.g. D[0..7] for D0 .. D7), it is not
> implausible
> > that "multi-dimensional" netlist labels are still sitting in the
> > "too-hard" basket (as they certainly weren't implemented in
> the first
> > instance). I also recall that the "variable" part of netlist labels
> > had to be at the very
> > *end* of each label, so while D0 .. D7 can be "bussed" (in
> the form of
> > D[0..7]), there were (and still are?) problems with
> attempting to "bus"
> > netlist labels such as D0B, D1B, ... , D7B - as D[0..7]B
> did not work as
> > envisaged.
>
> > Another thing which I found, while experimenting with the
> feature, was
> > that if I had a "Top" sheet, a "Row" sheet, a "Column" sheet, and a
> > "Cell" sheet (with the number of manifested instances of
> each type of
> > sheet being 1, N, M, and N*M respectively), then some options would
> > work as envisaged, while others were "dysfunctional".
> Furthermore, I
> > can't recall off-hand whether any of the "dysfunctional"
> options were
> > totally warning-free when I attempted to compile the
> project - but I
> > do specifically recall that *none* of the working options were
> > *totally* warning-free. When I subsequently reported those
> findings to
> > one of Altium's programmers, I was informed that the Multi-Channel
> > feature was not intended to implement that type of
> functionality. That
> > would doubtless largely explain the outcomes I encountered, but it
> > still doesn't change the fact that it's not inherently obvious that
> > that type of functionality was not intended to be supported.
>
> > Moral of the story: if you want to use the feature, I would suggest
> > looking at the netlist file and the set of components
> created from the
> > project, and checking that all of the associated details are fully
> > compliant with what you intended.
>
> > As I have mentioned in other messages, there are many issues with
> > Altium Designer concerning features and functionality which
> have not
> > been fully thought through, and testing of the application
> is nowhere
> > near as comprehensive as it should be. And of course there
> are so many
> > bugs which have either only been fixed many *years* after they were
> > first reported or which have *yet* to be fixed (yet again
> many years
> > after first being reported).
>
> > I fully appreciate that it would not be appropriate for
> *all* bugs to
> > be fixed *only* when they reach the "front" of the queue,
> as some bugs
> > are more serious than others. That said, many of the bugs which are
> > still outstanding, or which were only fixed many years after first
> > being reported, are still bugs which *should* have been fixed in
> > relatively short order, either because they are of a
> "gotcha" nature,
> > or because they force users to jump through multiple hoops to get a
> > job done, or because they otherwise severely undermine
> > user-productivity.
>
> > We really should be complaining about this situation to a
> much larger
> > extent than has been the case to date. Altium's corporate
> culture is
> > not conducive to raising the quality of its software
> through its own
> > efforts, so unless the level of complaining is distinctly
> escalated,
> > we are going to keep on getting more and more of the same.
>
> > When a new major version of software is released, the only
> reason why
> > users should feel ambivalent about it is the possible
> requirement to
> > install it on a PC with a higher running speed / yet more RAM / yet
> > more hard disk capacity. (I don't know why "bloat" is so much of an
> > issue, but Altium is certainly not the only offender in
> this regard).
>
> > With Altium Designer though, we are "treated" to new features which
> > haven't been fully thought through and which are still
> buggy, and it
> > is a lottery as to whether functionality which had been provided in
> > previous versions is still retained. (One example: until the
> > ".PrintoutName" Special String was eventually provided, the
> > functionality previously provided by the ".LayerName"
> Special String,
> > in identifying the nature of each ("Final
> > Mode") printout, had been lost. Another example: until
> relatively recently,
> > all versions following SP6 for Protel 99 SE did not permit users to
> > re-sequence the sequence of printouts within a set of
> printouts, which was
> > painful if you wanted to create a PDF file within which the
> sequence of all
> > layers (including non-copper layers) matched the sequence
> of layers within
> > the PCB file (as resequencing the sequence of printouts
> within a set of
> > printouts *was* possible in Protel 99 SE). And yet another
> example: the
> > "Find Similar Objects" feature was (and still is?) less
> user-friendly in
> > implementing "global" editing (than with the previously
> provided "expanded"
> > dialog boxes), as it didn't (and still doesn't?) provide
> users with the
> > ability to specify that only "free" primitives should be
> selected by that
> > feature, while excluding primitives which are child objects
> of components or
> > polygons.)
>
> > Almost enough for a day. One last thing though: Is Altium Designer
> > still "polluting" the RS-274X standard? In one of the SPs
> released for
> > AD6 (which I don't have a copy of, so I can't answer this
> myself), the
> > release note claimed that octagonal pads are now correctly depicted
> > within Gerber files for all angles. My experience has been that
> > octagonal pads have *never* been correctly depicted within Gerber
> > files for *any* angle, so my initial inclination was to say
> "oh oh".
> > To test whether the "pollution" is still occurring, place
> just one pad
> > in a PCB file, with an Angle (Rotation) property of zero degrees,
> > equal X-Size and Y-Size values (e.g. 60mil), and an Octagonal Shape
> > property. Generate a Gerber file from that PCB file, and
> check whether
> > the pad which is depicted within the Gerber file appears
> the same as
> > the pad within the PCB file. If the RS-274X standard is still being
> > "polluted", the pad depicted within the Gerber file will have two
> > vertices on the X axis and another two vertices on the Y
> axis, so *none* of its
> > (eight) edges will be either horizontal or vertical. (OTOH,
> the pad in the
> > PCB file will have two horizontal edges and two vertical edges.)
>
> > While enquiring whether Altium Designer still "polluting"
> the RS-274X
> > standard could sound like I am asking whether somebody is still
> > beating their wife, the fact remains that Altium Designer
> *has* been
> > "polluting" the RS-274X standard in at least the past, even
> if it is
> > not still doing so. Maybe things really have improved in
> that regard,
> > but I first reported that there was an issue in this regard back in
> > 1997, so *if* that issue has since been rectified, it has
> *only* been
> > rectified some time this year.
>
> > (Class performance, eh?)
>
> > Regards,
> > Geoff Harland.
>
>
> >> Hi Jakub,
> >>
> >> It's too bad that AD6 isn't a possibility for you, as a
> >> multi-channel
> > design is
> >> *much* easier with AD6. Otherwise a lot of manual intervention is
> >> required. You might check out the multi-channel design
> demo's just
> >> to see what AD6 could do for you in this area:
> >> http://www.altium.com/webdemos/?p=10
> >>
> >
> http://www.altium.com/Evaluate/DEMOcenter/AltiumDesigneroverview/Multi
> > channeldesign/
> >>
> >> I don't recall 99SE auto-generating the sheets for you
> here, I think
> >> you
> > had to
> >> copy/paste a sheet to make the new sheets. Then manually
> edit all of
> >> the
> > ref
> >> des so there were no duplicates.
> >>
> >> Somewhat painful in 99SE. A piece of cake in AD.
> >>
> >> ---Phil Stevens
> >>
> >> >> GET AD6
> >> >> :)
> >> >> it really handles this pretty well
> >> >>
> >> >> in 99SE there are methods but at the end of the day i
> found that
> >> >> you really needed the 20 separate sheets and getting
> them to all
> >> >> annotate nicely was a major pain
> >> >>
> >> >> the 'repeat' feature was what finally drove me to AD6
> >> >>
> >> >> Dennis Saputelli
>
>
>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
>
> > To Post messages:
> > mailto:PEDA at techservinc.com
>
> > Unsubscribe and Other Options:
> > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
>
> > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
> >
> > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
>
> To Post messages:
> mailto:PEDA at techservinc.com
>
> Unsubscribe and Other Options:
> http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
>
More information about the PEDA
mailing list