Home > Community > Forums > PCB Design > Place_boundary verus DFA_boundary usage

Email

* Required Fields

Recipients email * (separate multiple addresses with commas)

Your name *

Your email *

Message *

Contact Us

* Required Fields
First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Company / Institution *

Comments: *

 Place_boundary verus DFA_boundary usage 

Last post Tue, Apr 16 2013 11:44 AM by Roger BFS. 2 replies.
Started by Roger BFS 15 Apr 2013 12:45 PM. Topic has 2 replies and 437 views
Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
Sort Posts:
  • Mon, Apr 15 2013 12:45 PM

    • Roger BFS
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Mar 4 2011
    • Morrison, CO
    • Posts 67
    • Points 965
    Place_boundary verus DFA_boundary usage Reply

    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!

    Roger Green - B F Systems, LLC
    • Post Points: 20
  • Tue, Apr 16 2013 11:14 AM

    • BillZ
    • Top 75 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Jul 17 2008
    • Rochester, NY
    • Posts 94
    • Points 1,245
    Re: Place_boundary verus DFA_boundary usage Reply

     Hi,

    DFA boundary is used in Allegro Designer in the DFA feature to set package to package spacing. As to why your parts do not show height in the 16.6 Capture footprint viewer I would have to investigate that. 

    Cadence is aware of the issue with the Height display in package symbol editor and is planning on fixing it. I do not have an excat time frame. 

    BillZ

    EMA Design Automation

     

    • Post Points: 20
  • Tue, Apr 16 2013 11:44 AM

    • Roger BFS
    • Top 100 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Mar 4 2011
    • Morrison, CO
    • Posts 67
    • Points 965
    Re: Place_boundary verus DFA_boundary usage Reply

    Thank you Bill,

    The cheat-sheet I was looking for is regarding the priority order used to set package-to-package spacing rules by the tool, i.e.

    • DFA feature versus CM rules setup, is there a difference?
    • Should component DFA_boundary sizes include a spacing rule add-on?
    • If there is no DFA_boundary defined, does designer use place_boundary definitions instead (2nd choice)?
    • If both boundaries are defined should they be identical or different?

    With the Capture footprint viewer, the height is displayed on the EMA supplied library footprints and the only difference I can spot is that most of them have both dfa_boundary and place_boundary defined with height properties on both.

    Regards,

    Roger Green - B F Systems, LLC
    • Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
Sort Posts:
Started by Roger BFS at 15 Apr 2013 12:45 PM. Topic has 2 replies.