I think that it is not possible to add a new package group.
These are embedded in to the Xpedition software.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
As Wim said it doesn't look like there is a way to add new ones. If you are using this to define Package type clearances in the Constraint Manager, then you can use the "Clearance Type" field in conjunction with the Package Group to define the other groups. If it needs to be in the Package Group, I would suggest creating a Mentor Idea and let the rest of us know when you do so we can vote on it.
i have posted this idea 3 years ago.
May you link to it?
yes. it's the idea.
With this feature, We are able to catalog package groups based on JEDEC standard or IPC-7351.,
Sounds reasonable. I've voted for it. (:
How can Mentor consider this an "Enterprise" tool with out usable Package to Package spacing rules.
Allegro is light years ahead in this regard.
Not only can one not change/add Package Group names, there is no real time indication of violations while placing.
Since this is a 3 year old thread, obviously Mentor doesn't pay any attention to these threads.
I have brought Xpedition into the last 2 companies I have worked for.
I will bring Allegro into the next one.
This is an important feature for any company who will go into volume production, their lack of support for DFA is absurd.
Both Allegro and Xpedition have deficiencies and bugs, but this one is such a glaring lack that it tips the balance.
Just a few comments for you here.
First, Xpedition does support DFA, always has - and it has gotten even better in the past few releases. It has many things that Allegro cannot, and never has been able to do. I know, being a 15 year Cadence user.
But lets discuss some of the issues you are having.
Yes, you cannot add custom User groups. An IDEA is available to vote on, but most have not seen the need to have them. When you build your components, the ones available seem to be usable as is. But, provide a use case to Engineering as to why and you may get more traction.
As for DFA, Xpedition allows for checking to Part Outlines as well as Copper checks. Allegro uses a General Shape outline that in order to work must encompass the entire footprint. With the combination of copper checks and outline checks, boards can be placed more densely in Xpedition, without errors or having to override or edit boundaries as often done in Allegro. Also, Xpedition does real time checking during placement allowing the user to Prevent, Warn, or Shove parts according to DFA Rules. Allegro gives a bubble to show the spacing rule, but allows you to completely violate it while placing.
3D DFA (Allegro does not have this at all) - I can place in a 2D Layout or 3D layout in Xpedition with completely dynamic spacing and conflict checks in real time, at the same time. With DFA checking in the X, Y, and Z axis. I also have full control over Package groups and the Ability to have user controlled Overrides for specific Packages or Reference Designations.
So, in 30+ years of doing designs, I have found I can place quicker and denser within Xpedition. Although the IDEA may be valid for your use case, I think you will find there are plenty of DFA capabilities within Xpedition to create quality designs much quicker and more accurate than Allegro.
I would respectfully disagree with you on most of your points.
1) The lack of a visual indicator when placing parts makes it VERY
cumbersome and time consuming to place parts.
It is totally frustrating to have to click to place the part over and over,
trial and error, to get it placed on the boundary.
The allegro pause feature is great, drag a part it hits the boundary and
waits, then lets you move it beyond if you like.
With Xpedition, to violate the placement, like one part needs to be on one
spot, and move one a little over, you have to drop the part, turn off DRC,
place the part, then turn DRC back on and move the other part. VERY
If, when moving, you want to change the grid, once again you have to cancel
the command, change the grid and pick up the part again.
2) Allegro does do real time DFA height checking.
There doesn't seem to be ANY real time DFA other than not letting me place
To add insult to injury, if I place parts with DRC turned off, I have to
run a batch DRC to show the markers, but I cannot click on a marker to
determine what the DRC is.
As far as I can tell, there is no way to be as productive, placing parts,
with Xpedition as in Allegro.
I was actually an Allegro Beta site, and used it until about 4-1/2 years
ago when switching to Mentor tools.
There are nice things about Mentor tools, documentation, migration from
older tools, intuitive operation, support, feature enhancements, sales
support, are not among them.
There is a reason why Xpedition has only about 10% market share in Silicon
With all due respect, you probably need to spend more time with the tools.
1. Xpedition has a visual indicator for a DRC during placement - In both 2D and 3D
2. I never turn off DRC during placement, no need. I can let the part automatically shove the part if I need to fit it into position - Switch in Editor Control
3. I can change the grid while in a command. RMB or Keyin or DropDown Grid Bar
4 Allegro does not do 3D placement DFA Height checking dynamically.
5. All Placement checks for DFA are realtime in 3D and 2D. Batch checks are secondary and available.
6. Again, I never turn DRC Off. So I never have to go back and check DRCs by clicking on them. I do have the Hazard Explorer though that not only jumps directly to any DRC, but provides complete information on the DRC.
To be productive in placing parts in Xpedition, you must first build them properly. And then set your constraint properly. Try this in Allegro - Setup placement so that Body to Body is 10mils, but pad to pad is 7 mils to take into account Soldermask and Web. It cannot be done without making a huge Matrix in DFA for side to side and end to end spacing. I don't have to do that in Xpedition. I also don't have to place like Allegro with a 0mil body outline to body outline methodology. I let the Constraints take care of everything.
I think you will find that many will disagree with you on your final points. Especially if you have used both tools in an Advanced schedule environment. But you have the right to your opinion.
As for Market share, you might want to evaluate based on the #1 tool worldwide - not just the Valley.
Nice Discussing with you. And anytime you would like to benefit more from the tools, I can direct you to training links on the Mentor SupportNet page.
Thank you for the tips.
A big problem with Mentor is the terrible documentation.
Your search is quite useless.
Try searching for DFA, not much to find.
Video training is terrible, taking along time to find one simple point that
a decent search should find.
Visual indicator? Haven't figured out how to turn it on, sometimes it is
on, sometimes not.
Sometimes we get an X that doesn't seem to make any sense, on other
spacings it won't let us place the part.
I have spent, and continue to spend, a LOT of very frustrating time with
Silicon Valley is, unfortunately where I work and the jobs are on the west
coast. I do notice that the reference designs I have received from IBM,
Motorola, and Intel were all Allegro based.
This company was using PADS, we tried to upgrade from PADS Logic netlist,
to PADS Designer integrated, customer support finally admitted that no one
really uses it and it really isn't possible to migrate designs. That was
the beginning of the torture, a huge waste of time, and frustration. The
sales people could have been honest and told us that it wouldn't work.
Do you have a training link for DFA?