Quantcast
Channel: Cadence PCB Design Forum
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5525

Place_boundary verus DFA_boundary usage

$
0
0

Some time ago I recall some class/tutorial notes regarding the way SPB tools utilize these two subclasses with respect to component placement and constraints definitions as well as interpretation by the 3D viewer.  I can't seem to locate those notes now.

I have always used place_bound shapes to represent actual component body dimensions and to create a crude 3D model for visualization of boards with components.  With recent upgrade to 16.6, the footprint viewer (within CIS) does not properly interpret my footprints with the 3D heights.  

I have noticed that in EMA supplied footprints, many also have dfa_bound shapes defined with height properties.  Those footprints appear to reflect an appropriate 3D perspective in the CIS viewer.

Do I need to update all my symbol libraries to include both subclasses and/or why?

Oh - I've also noticed that the 3D viewer within symbol editor is still broken (since v16.3) with respect to inverting the Z-axis display of height information.  The positive height properties are displayed downward through the board level padstacks as opposed to top-up. Anyone know of plans to "fix" that some day?

Any tutorial guidance is appreciated!


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5525


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>