1 of 1 people found this helpful
There is a Bridging Nets with Copper function that may work for you.
I have also made a two pin smt part called short. It consist of two pads that overlap minimally.
I made a few of them with pad sizes to correspond to the trace width I needed to use.
That way you can tie GNDA to one pad and GNDB to the other. You just need to not have solder mask pads defined
or because they are pads they will be relieved. This way it shows right in schematic where this tie point is to be located.
You may be able to use the Bridge function to get DRCs to go away, or just deal with knowing exactly where you will be seeing
a DRC flag.
I am not sure how the bridge function handles the two nets tied together with respect to IPC 356A netlist output for netlist test of boards.
But I usually add a read me text file for the fabricator defining exactly what nets have been tied together for test, otherwise you will get questions.
Responding to other answer,
SInceVX2 added a cleaner way of doing this that is great!!! But it is also nice to have this info in schematic also,
as this helps define with more clarity where it wants to be for design intent.
Okay, I like your idea. I am trying to create a part as you indicated. How do you turn DRC off in the cell editor.
Mmm, OK just realizing this is PADS Pro you are using and that is more Expedition like, so you are dealing with cells and not decals.
In PADS this is not a problem, however in Pro not so sure, because of DRC is it not letting you save? Or other issues?
Maybe someone familiar with Pro version will jump in on this. I seem to remember back a while in full Expedition this was not a problem,
we used to do this with cells with no problems. But that goes back a number of versions ago, haven't actually used Expedition in a few years now.
Yup, welcome to my world. I recognized you user ID from way back using Layout. You generally provided solid answers. That is the way I would have done it there as well. We were forced (by design requirements) to make this jump to PADS Pro. It has been very painful and costly. Very steep learning curve, terminology is not even close, You need to set the design units in several places just to have everything come out as you want it. Two databases need to be maintained for parts / components; one in the program xDX Designer and the other is Access based.
This was supposed to be a step forward for capabilities but a big hurdle in reverse from a usability standpoint when compared to PADS Logic / Layout.
Sorry couldn't help further. But yes I just recently learned what Pro actually was, I originally thought
it was the full blown version of PADS with all the constraint driven router etc capabilities. But it is really
quote an "Expedition Lite"!!!! So I hear ya on the bit more of overhead there is. If you had used Expedition before
it would probably not be that much of a deal. But yes there is for sure a little more overhead on both DxDesigner & Expedition