USE DISCOUNT CODEEXPERT30TO SAVE $30 USD
Differences I noticed on beginners course with version 16 and the Video version
zeino , 02-09-2016, 01:37 PM
PCB Library wise:
1- The data sheet for the 330uF I accessed to through the DigiKey showed a different footprint and table for 7343-43 resulting in parameter S rather than C+C being in the footprint and values 6.4 instead of 5.4 in the video for distance between pads. It might confuse some when reaching there.
2- Design Rule check wise:
I didn't have any green (or error) except the 0.254 silk screen error mentioned in the video and those went away as Robert had shown.
I still checked the unrouted routes in the rules to be inline with the video but it was not necessary. There must be something in my fresh Altium setting different than the Video.
3- The PCB board definition is different. Depending on the view being set on:
1) Board planning mode,
2) 2D mode
3) 3D Mode
you may not see the redefine board shape. The menu has Define board shape but in it no redefine board shape. In other words there is no board already defined to redefine it.
The redefine board shape exists in Board planning mode which is view->Board Planning mode and then you can go and redefine the board shape in the design menu
The 2D view which is the default setting has the board shape menu item but there is a board cut out there instead. Haven't tried this way.
I will add to this list as it goes. Some differences are good for learning process.
1- The data sheet for the 330uF I accessed to through the DigiKey showed a different footprint and table for 7343-43 resulting in parameter S rather than C+C being in the footprint and values 6.4 instead of 5.4 in the video for distance between pads. It might confuse some when reaching there.
2- Design Rule check wise:
I didn't have any green (or error) except the 0.254 silk screen error mentioned in the video and those went away as Robert had shown.
I still checked the unrouted routes in the rules to be inline with the video but it was not necessary. There must be something in my fresh Altium setting different than the Video.
3- The PCB board definition is different. Depending on the view being set on:
1) Board planning mode,
2) 2D mode
3) 3D Mode
you may not see the redefine board shape. The menu has Define board shape but in it no redefine board shape. In other words there is no board already defined to redefine it.
The redefine board shape exists in Board planning mode which is view->Board Planning mode and then you can go and redefine the board shape in the design menu
The 2D view which is the default setting has the board shape menu item but there is a board cut out there instead. Haven't tried this way.
I will add to this list as it goes. Some differences are good for learning process.
robertferanec , 02-10-2016, 12:21 AM
@zeino, thank you. Yes, there are small changes between Altium versions. If anyone need any help, just let me know.
The most of the biggest changes I have recorded and can be found on our blog (search for "The New & Old Way"). For example, the Board definition can be found here: Altium – How to Define Board Shape (The New & Old Way) My plan is to record videos about all the differences and place the links directly into the Course pages.
The most of the biggest changes I have recorded and can be found on our blog (search for "The New & Old Way"). For example, the Board definition can be found here: Altium – How to Define Board Shape (The New & Old Way) My plan is to record videos about all the differences and place the links directly into the Course pages.
zeino , 02-10-2016, 12:28 AM
That would be great. Thank you for the link. That is what I needed. Would search the videos next time more carefully.
robertferanec , 02-10-2016, 12:31 AM
There are not so many differences. Most of the things is easy to figure out. The board shape definition is probably the most complicated.
zeino , 02-10-2016, 12:46 AM
Good to know. It was Ok. Actually differences like this helps the learning process. I found the new way a little more complicated than older way and disconnected. They could have merged view #1 with 2D and 3D and unified the approach I guess. The previous version from my novice perspective seems more user friendly. If the new approach is more logical and less user friendly and the old approach is more user friendly but less logical then I expect next version it will be changed again and this process never ends and one needs to expect this in ever evolving software like Altium for sure.
robertferanec , 02-10-2016, 12:51 AM
I completely agree. I also had to google it 
zeino , 02-13-2016, 06:48 PM
Stack layer looks different, but one gets used to it but not as straight forward as the video. You have to add the planes and layers and then go in and define each layer. The video version looks better even when switching to 3D. Wondering how they changed it and the older version still looks better graphically (it seems they wanted to introduce multiple stack layers, like Rigid, Flex all in one plane and older graphic wouldn't work)
If https://techdocs.altium.com/display/...ack+Management is the place to look. The net assignment is different and not done through stack management.
It says to double click on work-space plane layer and set the net.
If https://techdocs.altium.com/display/...ack+Management is the place to look. The net assignment is different and not done through stack management.
It says to double click on work-space plane layer and set the net.
robertferanec , 02-14-2016, 12:38 AM
Thank you @zeino.
In case anyone need, I also made a video about the new Stackup manager, but as you said, it's quite easy to understand how to use it: Altium – Stackup Manager (The New & Old Way)
In case anyone need, I also made a video about the new Stackup manager, but as you said, it's quite easy to understand how to use it: Altium – Stackup Manager (The New & Old Way)
zeino , 02-14-2016, 07:11 AM
Thank you Robert for the link. I didn't search in the Archive. May be it would be good to put the corresponding links in the corresponding course page or in the section page under the name for example "Supporting Videos" of the particular course video. Then they are associated with the section or at the end of the list of videos as a separate link.
robertferanec , 02-14-2016, 07:18 AM
Putting these links directly into the course is on my list. I really should do that.
@zeino, if you find something else, please put it here. That will create a summary of important things what should I add to the course.
I think there is only one more big difference - about how to work with polygons .... but that is very intuitive and I do not have any video about it.
@zeino, if you find something else, please put it here. That will create a summary of important things what should I add to the course.
I think there is only one more big difference - about how to work with polygons .... but that is very intuitive and I do not have any video about it.
zeino , 02-15-2016, 12:24 AM
@robertferanec You mentioned the polygon is different, I reached the polygon pour and the only way I managed to pour a polygon was to use the polygon cutout in place menu. The polygon pour was simply not working and didn't include the same net. Was I doing something wrong? Do you have a video for it?
robertferanec , 02-15-2016, 12:43 AM
There should not be a problem with polygons. They are just easier to work with - you can directly edit the shape when you select it.
What AD version are you using? There are differences between them.
What AD version are you using? There are differences between them.
zeino , 02-15-2016, 01:02 AM
I am using 16. Just used the polygon pour and it is different to polygon cutout. The polygon cutout didn't use the setting of ploygon plane but the polygon pour does (probably I don't know when to use polygon cutout but it acts differently) . I missed changing the polygon plane to direct connect and it was using 4 points connect.
robertferanec , 02-16-2016, 03:17 AM
"Polygon pour cutout" makes a hole in "Polygon pour".
So, for example if you have a big copper polygon plane and you need to make inside it an area with no copper, use a polygon pour cutout. See the picture below - selected is polygon cutout:
So, for example if you have a big copper polygon plane and you need to make inside it an area with no copper, use a polygon pour cutout. See the picture below - selected is polygon cutout:
zeino , 02-16-2016, 08:43 AM
Thanks Robert, now I know, so I used it just vice versa to what it was intended for when my pour was not working. (I used it to pour with no constraints, it worked may be because there was no pour to cut out it actually poured one). Now I know, it is all good. Thank you
robertferanec , 02-16-2016, 08:47 AM
Perfect
Use our interactive Discord forum to reply or ask new questions.