Due to a bug in the Easy PC software tool from
Numberone Systems, I've just 
had a very time consuming and costly incident. Despite their faulty software 
costing me a lot of money, the company have so far taken the "hard luck" 
approach.

Has anyone else had any experience of Easy PC?

TIA,

Rog. 

"Roger" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:7...@brightview.co.uk...
> Due to a bug in the Easy PC software tool from Numberone Systems, I've 
> just had a very time consuming and costly incident. Despite their faulty 
> software costing me a lot of money, the company have so far taken the 
> "hard luck" approach.
>
> Has anyone else had any experience of Easy PC?
>
> TIA,
>
> Rog.

I've been using EasyPC for some years now - never had any problems at all. 
What was your problem (and what version were you using) - if there is a hole 
you can describe I might be able to avoid it !!

Michael Kellett 

On 19 Jan, 11:29, "Roger"
<rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Due to a bug in the Easy PC software tool from Numberone Systems, I've just
> had a very time consuming and costly incident. Despite their faulty software
> costing me a lot of money, the company have so far taken the "hard luck"
> approach.
>
> Has anyone else had any experience of Easy PC?
>
> TIA,
>
> Rog.

Roger

Our CAD department uses Mentor. We probably pay 50 times per seat the
cost of Easy PC. We ship the netlist with the gerbers and the PCB
manufacturers recently reported on one of my designs that the netlist
automatically generated from the gerbers showed power shorted directly
to ground.
Software is provided "as is", if you need to rely on its output you
need to be able to check it via such a third party.

Sorry to be blunt, I'm also trying to go self employed somehow and
hopefully I will then be able to feel your pain more accurately.

Colin

"colin" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Jan, 11:29, "Roger" <rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Due to a bug in the Easy PC software tool from Numberone Systems, I've 
>> just
>> had a very time consuming and costly incident. Despite their faulty 
>> software
>> costing me a lot of money, the company have so far taken the "hard
luck"
>> approach.
>>
>> Has anyone else had any experience of Easy PC?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Rog.
>
> Roger
>
> Our CAD department uses Mentor. We probably pay 50 times per seat the
> cost of Easy PC. We ship the netlist with the gerbers and the PCB
> manufacturers recently reported on one of my designs that the netlist
> automatically generated from the gerbers showed power shorted directly
> to ground.
> Software is provided "as is", if you need to rely on its output you
> need to be able to check it via such a third party.
>
> Sorry to be blunt, I'm also trying to go self employed somehow and
> hopefully I will then be able to feel your pain more accurately.
>
> Colin

Hi Colin,

If only it were so simple! I appreciate that software is supplied "as is" 
which is why I had to shrug my shoulders when the bug caused me hassle the 
first time it occurred in July 09. When it re-appeared in my next design in 
November 09 after allegedly being fixed and caused the PCBs to be written 
off, that's when I started to feel somewhat aggrieved! Number One have said 
it's a different fault - just one with exactly the same symptoms (!!) so I 
shouldn't complain. I've approached them for some form of recompense or at 
least a good will gesture but they won't even answer my e-mails now.

The thread about this saga on their forum shows basic gist if you can be 
bothered: http://www.numberone.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=385

I hear what you say about checking everything i.e. basically trust nothing! 
Good luck if you go self-employed. Choose your tools supplier well though, 
not like me!

Rog. 

"MK" <m...@nospam.please> wrote in message 
news:N...@bt.com...
>
> "Roger" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:7...@brightview.co.uk...
>> Due to a bug in the Easy PC software tool from Numberone Systems, I've 
>> just had a very time consuming and costly incident. Despite their faulty 
>> software costing me a lot of money, the company have so far taken the 
>> "hard luck" approach.
>>
>> Has anyone else had any experience of Easy PC?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Rog.
>
> I've been using EasyPC for some years now - never had any problems at all. 
> What was your problem (and what version were you using) - if there is a 
> hole you can describe I might be able to avoid it !!
>
> Michael Kellett
>

Michael,

I too have been using EPC for some years (about 5) and hadn't had any 
problems until now.

In July 09 (using version 12.0.5) I had a PCB which suffered from a signal 
via also shorting a power and ground Cu pour area. I reported this and a bug 
was found and allegedly fixed (up issue to 12.0.6). Software bugs crop up 
and I didn't make a big deal of it.

In November 09 I had another design due for manufacture so I checked with 
Support that I had the required software fix and submitted the design for 
manufacture. This design had 3 vias that were again shorting Cu pour areas 
within the board. As far as I can see the fault wasn't fixed despite being 
told it was. The result to me was £1500 worth of PCBs being scrapped and an 
unhappy customer due to a missed delivery deadline.

I was told that it was actually 2 faults that have exactly the same 
consequence - one was fixed in July but the second wasn't detected until my 
design came along in November. From the customer POV i.e. the important POV, 
the same fault re-occurred. I've approached them for some form of recompense 
or at
least a good will gesture but they won't even answer my e-mails now.

The vast majority of discussion has been via the user forum 
http://www.numberone.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=385 i.e. the Manufacturing 
Outputs, Gerber file corruption thread if you want to see more of this.

Good luck.

Rog.

 

On Jan 20, 10:01=A0am, "Roger"
<rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This design had 3 vias that were again shorting Cu pour areas
> within the board.

Does it not have a Post-pour clearance/connectivity check ?

I've also seen a PCB FAB's tool set (CAM350) drop the ball : if you
give them Gerber FILL codes, CAM350 does not always quite get it
right...

That's why you should NOT use too much intelligence in your Gerber
data, and use your PCB tools checks....
(and a Mk1  eyeball helps too )

"-jg" <j...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 20, 10:01 am, "Roger" <rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This design had 3 vias that were again shorting Cu pour areas
>> within the board.
>
> Does it not have a Post-pour clearance/connectivity check ?
>
> I've also seen a PCB FAB's tool set (CAM350) drop the ball : if you
> give them Gerber FILL codes, CAM350 does not always quite get it
> right...
>
> That's why you should NOT use too much intelligence in your Gerber
> data, and use your PCB tools checks....
> (and a Mk1  eyeball helps too )
>

Jim,

The DRC tool checks the clearances and connectivity of the design within the 
EPC environment. The fault appears when the Gerber files are generated i.e. 
the Gerbers had the Cu touching the vias whereas this wasn't the case when 
still in the design environment. The DRC obviously reports no problems as it 
works within the EPC environment.

Interesting what you say about the FILL codes, I've not heard of that 
before.

Rog. 

On Jan 19, 3:48=A0pm, "Roger"
<rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "colin" <colin_toog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 19 Jan, 11:29, "Roger" <rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Due to a bug in the Easy PC software tool from Numberone Systems, I've
> >> just
> >> had a very time consuming and costly incident. Despite their faulty
> >> software
> >> costing me a lot of money, the company have so far taken the "hard
luc=
k"
> >> approach.
>
> >> Has anyone else had any experience of Easy PC?
>
> >> TIA,
>
> >> Rog.
>
> > Roger
>
> > Our CAD department uses Mentor. We probably pay 50 times per seat the
> > cost of Easy PC. We ship the netlist with the gerbers and the PCB
> > manufacturers recently reported on one of my designs that the netlist
> > automatically generated from the gerbers showed power shorted directly
> > to ground.
> > Software is provided "as is", if you need to rely on its output you
> > need to be able to check it via such a third party.
>
> > Sorry to be blunt, I'm also trying to go self employed somehow and
> > hopefully I will then be able to feel your pain more accurately.
>
> > Colin
>
> Hi Colin,
>
> If only it were so simple! I appreciate that software is supplied "as is"
> which is why I had to shrug my shoulders when the bug caused me hassle th=
e
> first time it occurred in July 09. When it re-appeared in my next design =
in
> November 09 after allegedly being fixed and caused the PCBs to be written
> off, that's when I started to feel somewhat aggrieved! Number One have sa=
id
> it's a different fault - just one with exactly the same symptoms (!!) so =
I
> shouldn't complain. I've approached them for some form of recompense or a=
t
> least a good will gesture but they won't even answer my e-mails now.
>
> The thread about this saga on their forum shows basic gist if you can be
> bothered:http://www.numberone.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3D385
>
> I hear what you say about checking everything i.e. basically trust nothin=
g!
> Good luck if you go self-employed. Choose your tools supplier well though=
,
> not like me!
>
> Rog.

I've never used EasyPC, but have had similar problems with PADS.
The main problem is the disconnect between the design database
and the Gerber output.  Our company always does extensive post
design checks before sending the Gerbers to fabrication.  We also
require the fab house to check the Gerbers to the IPC netlist
generated directly from the PADS database.  This is where this
type of problem usually gets discovered.  If the fab house only
uses the IPC netlist to run electrical test after fabrication,
you lose a lot of time and money.  If you let the fab house
run the electrical tests from the Gerbers without supplying
an IPC netlist, then you can lose even more.

Regards,
Gabor

On Jan 20, 11:37=A0pm, "Roger"
<rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "-jg" <jim.granvi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 20, 10:01 am, "Roger" <rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> This design had 3 vias that were again shorting Cu pour areas
> >> within the board.
>
> > Does it not have a Post-pour clearance/connectivity check ?
>
> > I've also seen a PCB FAB's tool set (CAM350) drop the ball : if you
> > give them Gerber FILL codes, CAM350 does not always quite get it
> > right...
>
> > That's why you should NOT use too much intelligence in your Gerber
> > data, and use your PCB tools checks....
> > (and a Mk1 =A0eyeball helps too )
>
> Jim,
>
> The DRC tool checks the clearances and connectivity of the design within =
the
> EPC environment. The fault appears when the Gerber files are generated i.=
e.
> the Gerbers had the Cu touching the vias whereas this wasn't the case whe=
n
> still in the design environment. The DRC obviously reports no problems as=
 it
> works within the EPC environment.
 ?!  A good tool should use the SAME dataset for DRC, as it does for
Gerber plotting.
- in fact, it is usually MORE work, to do otherwise.

Did you verify the Gerbers in a viewer ?

>
> Interesting what you say about the FILL codes, I've not heard of that
> before.

Yes, shows the risks of allowing a downstream tool, to generate copper
data. Especially if that copper data is OUTSIDE the DRC process, and
it drops the ball...

Nett Result is exactly the same issue you hit: Pour areas with too
much copper. (aka missing voids)..

Fill codes have their place for padstacks, but NOT for larger copper
areas, with voids, cutouts and what may be varying plot orders...

-jg

"-jg" <j...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b...@14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 20, 11:37 pm, "Roger" <rogerwil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "-jg" <jim.granvi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 20, 10:01 am, "Roger" <rogerwil...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> This design had 3 vias that were again shorting Cu pour areas
>> >> within the board.
>>
>> > Does it not have a Post-pour clearance/connectivity check ?
>>
>> > I've also seen a PCB FAB's tool set (CAM350) drop the ball : if you
>> > give them Gerber FILL codes, CAM350 does not always quite get it
>> > right...
>>
>> > That's why you should NOT use too much intelligence in your Gerber
>> > data, and use your PCB tools checks....
>> > (and a Mk1  eyeball helps too )
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> The DRC tool checks the clearances and connectivity of the design within 
>> the
>> EPC environment. The fault appears when the Gerber files are generated 
>> i.e.
>> the Gerbers had the Cu touching the vias whereas this wasn't the case 
>> when
>> still in the design environment. The DRC obviously reports no problems as 
>> it
>> works within the EPC environment.
> ?!  A good tool should use the SAME dataset for DRC, as it does for
> Gerber plotting.
> - in fact, it is usually MORE work, to do otherwise.
>
> Did you verify the Gerbers in a viewer ?
>
>>
>> Interesting what you say about the FILL codes, I've not heard of that
>> before.
>
> Yes, shows the risks of allowing a downstream tool, to generate copper
> data. Especially if that copper data is OUTSIDE the DRC process, and
> it drops the ball...
>
> Nett Result is exactly the same issue you hit: Pour areas with too
> much copper. (aka missing voids)..
>
> Fill codes have their place for padstacks, but NOT for larger copper
> areas, with voids, cutouts and what may be varying plot orders...
>
> -jg

Jim,

Are these the G36 and G37 codes?

Rog.