[PEDA] moving to ad6

[Geoff Harland]

What is your impression of AD6 on an overall basis? How buggy is it, and how
good (and fast) is Altium at fixing bugs within it which are reported by
users?

As you can doubtless deduce, I don't have a copy of AD6 myself, but I am
still gobsmacked to some extent after looking at the list of items which
have been implemented or rectified within various SPs which have been
released for SP6; IMO, many of the bugs reported as fixed should *not* have
been thus-reported at all, because they *should* have been detected, and
then fixed, *before* the associated software had ever been released to users
in the first instance.

Example: in one of the earlier SPs, a new feature was listed in which holes
within pads could have a square shape or oval shape, in addition to the
long-provided round shape. And in one of the *following* SPs, one of the
bugs which was listed as being rectified was that the associated properties
of pads' holes were now correctly copied from the source components to the
target footprints when using the Make (PCB) Library server. So WTF were
those new properties *not* properly copied to the footprints within the
thus-created PCB Library files at the *same time* that those new properties
were *first* provided?

I have read that the most recent SP now provides support for pads which have
a Rounded Rectangular shape. Here are some questions for those who do have
AD6, and who have also installed that SP:

1. If you save a PCB file (which contains at least one such pad) in an ASCII
(text) format, and then inspect the contents of that file (using Notepad,
for instance), are the properties of that pad (/those pads) listed in a
recognisable and comprehensive manner?

2. Assuming that the ASCII file is in fact OK in that regard, can you
subsequently reopen that file and then the pad(s) concerned have the same
properties as before (that file was closed)? (Tip: When you look at that
file using Notepad, *don't* try resaving it at that time, because if you do,
there is a possibility that the file will not reopen (in AD6) without
"drama". Some lines within the file end with the x0D (/ #13 / CR) character
followed by the #0A (/ #10 / LF) character, while other lines end with
*just* the x0D character, and if you resave that file, then *all* of the
lines will subsequently end with the x0D character followed by the #0A
character. AD6 could well subsequently "think" that that file is not an
AD6-compliant file, and you could have to redefine the boundary of the PCB,
amongst other tasks.)

3. If you create a Gerber file from a PCB file containing at least one such
pad, does the CAMtastic file which is subsequently created depict the pad(s)
concerned in an appropriate manner? And are the pad(s) still correctly
depicted when you create a Gerber file in a mirrored form? And do both
Gerber files still look OK when such pads have an assortment of Angle
properties, e.g. for every integral multiple of 45 degrees, and for an
intermediate value within every "semi-quadrant"?

4. If you preview those Gerber files (i.e both an unmirrored Gerber file and
a mirrored Gerber file) using a "third party" application (for instance,
Graphicode's GC-Prevue application), are all of the pads concerned still
depicted in an appropriate manner (and within both of those Gerber files)?

5. If you create one or more components which incorporate such pads, are all
of the relevant properties properly copied to the footprint(s) within the
PCB Library file which is created when using the Make (PCB) Library command?
(To comprehensively test this would call for at least one component placed
on the Top side of the ("source") PCB and at least one component placed on
the Bottom side; ideally, the properties of at least 16 pads on *each* side
of the PCB should be checked to ensure that Angle properties are also/still
properly handled. But to start off, have just one component with just one
such pad, and with both the component and its pad having an Angle property
of zero degrees. There's no point in testing more comprehensively if that
server can't even "copy" that pad properly.)

*If* all of those tests pass with flying colours, then that would indicate a
level of professionalism by Altium which is above and beyond what I have
been accustomed to within the versions preceding AD 6. (When Embedded Board
Array objects were first provided (in AD 2004), they wouldn't even pass test
# 1 above.)

Nobody is under any obligation to undertake any of the above tests of
course, but if you want peace of mind, it would still be helpful to
determine whether any of those tests fail before you contemplate "relying"
on AD 6 in supporting this new type of pad.

Regards,
Geoff Harland.


> Hi,
>
> to my knowledge there is no upgrade possibility for you at all. Altium
> stopped upgrade offers for 99SE users already last year. You will have to
> purchase a complete new package without any discount. At least that is the
> official version. Maybe you can bargain with your local dealer ...
> The SW price strongly depends on your location, there is no general
> answer.
>
> There are quite a number of people on this list using AD6. E.g. I am. And
> cannot confirm crashing problems, at least not with AD6.6.
> For new features check Altium website; there are too many of them to
> describe them here.
>
> Mit freundlichem Gruß
> Kind regards
>
> Gisbert Auge
> N.A.T. GmbH
> www.nateurope.com