| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
TheBFG
United Kingdom
61 Posts |
 Posted - 18 May 2011 : 16:37:03
|
Since the original thread is now locked :-
I'd like to see the component to component spacing check in DRC work better with irregular shaped components and when a polar grid is used. Also components inside components.
Re-iterating some previous requests (thanks grs for some of them):-
I'd like to see the ability to handle high voltage creepage rules i.e.
Net 1 to Net 2 = 100 thou
Net 1 to Net 3 = 150 thou
etc, not additional spacings as we currently have I find that doesn't do what I need to comply with legislation.
An extra tab in design technology would work very well.
More total zoom levels, with less change between each level.
It seems crazy to me that the PCB editor will allow you to join nets, why would anyone ever want to do this in a PCB? This should never be allowed. Also delete a trace in PCB should not delete it from netlist, this is a pain to forward annotate every time a trace is deleted. |
Edited by - TheBFG on 18 May 2011 16:39:38 |
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 01:27:00
|
quote:
It seems crazy to me that the PCB editor will allow you to join nets, why would anyone ever want to do this in a PCB? This should never be allowed. Also delete a trace in PCB should not delete it from netlist, this is a pain to forward annotate every time a trace is deleted.
I completely agree. The PCB editor should not be able to modify the netlist. Deleting tracks should leave the nets intact and there should be no way of creating a net in the pcb editor. At the moment one can accidently create connectivity in the PCB ed. and if this connectivity is added to pins which have no conectivity in the SCH then the DRC checker doesnt see it. I too cannot see the point of this. |
 |
|
|
Kruse
Denmark
28 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 08:43:09
|
I have been wondering about this too.
The schematic serves as the 'masterplan' for the design, it seems odd that you can infact add nets and even components in PCB editor.
Its kind og 'backwards' editing.
BTW am I the only one that has experienced an error when 'Forewarding design changes' ?
Sometimes it claims 'Designs are the same' eventhough they obviously not.
|
|
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 10:00:18
|
quote:
I have been wondering about this too.
The schematic serves as the 'masterplan' for the design, it seems odd that you can infact add nets and even components in PCB editor.
Its kind og 'backwards' editing.
Yes that sums my view on how a netlist driven PCB package should work. Schematic dictates netlist. PCB does as its told.
quote:
BTW am I the only one that has experienced an error when 'Forewarding design changes' ?
Sometimes it claims 'Designs are the same' even though they obviously not.
No you are not alone. Many things can create this problem. The really nasty one is when one is dragging parts about on a PCB. One accidentally rubs two unconnected pads together. PCB package thinks you want to add a net in PCB so does so. If I remember correctly froward design changes only checks connectivity on the connected pins on the schematic. I.e. It ignores floating pins as they are single pin nets. So it seems not to notice the erroneous added net as described above. Also groups can be different between SCH and PCB and it doesn't correct differences. The ability to delete nets at PCB level is just plain time wasting. I frequently want to delete a track but NEVER want the net to go with it. I know I could use Un-route track but in my view delete should do the obvious and logical thing. Maybe Un-route track should remove track AND net - even though this is madness. At least the madness would then be locked away in a menu and could be ignored. Delete is a very accessible "BASIC" type key and should do the sensible thing. Not just tracks though - I also never want to delete a component at PCB level. Nor do I want to duplicate a component - else this would mean my schematic would be wrong. etc.
K
|
|
|
|
johnt
United Kingdom
52 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 11:29:55
|
It could just be that my apprach is a bit sloppy but I sometimes
want to add a plug or change a battery holder to a different type
and find doing it on the PCB quicker and easier -
especially if i just want to do a quick 3D view to see what a specific item looks like in place.
Or perhaps it's just me being lazy.
I can see both sides of this - on one hand you havve my lazy approach -
on the other you have your more rigorous methods.
I guess the question is - do you want the extra flexibility or do you
want to enforce working practices.
On the net thing - doesn't a pop up warning asking you if you
want to join to nets appear when you do this or am I thinking of something different?
john
---------------------------------
New: Design For Manufacture Forum
http://www.johntech.co.uk/dfm
All visitors welcome. |
|
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2011 : 13:45:52
|
If you try to join 2 nets together then a warning appears. If you accidently create a NEW net then no warning appears.
K |
|
|
|
DavidM
United Kingdom
458 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2011 : 09:37:26
|
couple of quick points...
By "accidentally rubs two unconnected pads together" I presume you mean the autoweld feature that will join two items if you put them down on top of each other? If that is the case, then the simple solution would seem to be to uncheck 'Weld On Drop' on the 'PCB Interaction' page of the Preferences dialog.
I can confirm that there will be another Preferences switch in V15 that will make Delete Track in PCB do Unroute Track instead.
David |
|
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2011 : 11:06:41
|
Switching off autoweld is a good tip. Worth remembering.
The fact that the DRC process seems not to notice accidentally created nets at PCB level needs looking into.
quote:
I can confirm that there will be another Preferences switch in V15 that will make Delete Track in PCB do Unroute Track instead.
An even better solution might be a switch which prevents the netlist being changed at PCB level and as a consequence Delete track would perform the unroute track function instead.
Killing multiple birds with single projectile.
K
|
|
|
|
robhardy
United Kingdom
55 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2011 : 09:57:18
|
I have had an issue when changing components, for example converting a DO diode to a SOT23 package, sometimes the extra pin is welded to another net. This can be difficult to spot especially if only one component is changed.
even using update component can cause a problem, all it takes is for the pin lengths to change, shape size to change.
Best not to have weld on drop enabled
Rob hardy |
|
|
|
AndyB
United Kingdom
208 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2011 : 00:13:14
|
Would it be possible to merge multiple pads to produce one complex shaped pad.
Using the shape command is a bit fiddly.
It would allow for complex and accurate pads. |
|
|
|
Peter Johnson
United Kingdom
493 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2011 : 17:35:19
|
Following on from the BFG's request, the way the spacings dialogue works has been changed in V15 to allow a lot more flexibility for those who want the complexity, but it can also be left to work as at present.
Weld on drop is DEFINITELY a feature that should be left off except when performing specific tasks that need it. It's far too dangerous to leave permanently enabled. It's not the DRC which would pick up[ an extra track in the pcb, it's the integrity check.
The ability to add and delete tracks in the pcb editor is essential. The users who have commented on this thread may work from a schematic, but there are a significant number of users who design the pcb first and follow with the schematic. They'd be most upset if the program didn't allow this method of working. |
|
|
|
KevL
United Kingdom
78 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2011 : 13:36:27
|
When I re-read my previous I can understand why you might suppose I wanted (what I regard as) non-useful functionality removing. That was not my intention. - though to be fair it is exactly what I wrote :-)
I concede there are some folk who work as you describe - PCB first then schematic.
Optimally EZ should support both approaches.
The only point I wanted to make is that the flexibility can produce undesirable results to the many (I would contend - most) who work in the schematic master - PCB does as its told mode.
It seems to me that this is such an important issue that there might optimally be a powerful setting (via a tick box in the design options). So important it maybe warrants its own menu item with a big tick in it.
Setting might be :- Permit netlist modification at PCB level.
If unticked (schematic master pcb does as its told mode) then the following behaviour results.
Delete track by hitting del simply unroutes it.
Duplicate component and other netlist changing functionality is disabled - does nothing.
weld on drop - doesnt.
If ticked then behaviour permits all manner of netlist mod etc - as it does at present.
K
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
V15 Feature Suggestions