Blazerouter strategy option menu...

[litestone]

Hi. I'm using Blazerouter 4.0 somtimes.
I downloaded a application note of Blazerouter 4.0. (It is Powerpoint doc.)

At 10 page in the document, I found a new & stange menu structure different from current Blazerouter 4.0. I attached the menu shot. Strategy menu is completely different from my system. Is this right? I will attach a shot of my system.
Check two menu please..

[litestone]

Blazerouter menu in the document.

[litestone]

My system(also Blazerouter 4.0) menu..

[litestone]

Which menu system do you have currently?
The menu in the document is for Blazerouter 5.0?
Please help.

[phillipr]

Interesting!!

I have the normal box same as you.
Even in the V5.0 Demo.

[Dick Belanger]

The dialog shown in the document is an internal debugging version for the developers. Mark Gallant used it in a presentation to help illustrate the internal workings of BlazeRouter. As customers, you should always see the "normal" version.

Dick

[randychase]

Originally posted by Dick Belanger
The dialog shown in the document is an internal debugging version for the developers. Mark Gallant used it in a presentation to help illustrate the internal workings of BlazeRouter. As customers, you should always see the "normal" version.

Dick

Thanks Dick. I thought that was the answer from the user's conference, but I was not sure.

He made the point that this was the table used behind the choices we have. In other words, when you select ROUTE and then MEDIUM, this is the costing and options that are applied.

[Colorado-PC-Dude]

I think I'd rather have the internal debugging version. Looks like it would give you far greater control over what is being done in the autorouter.

Ben

[Dick Belanger]

Be careful what you wish for or you might get it ;-)

Some things are developed with the intention of customers using them directly, some aren't. Take PowerPCB macros for an example. It was developed to allow replaying of recorded actions, nothing more. Customers picked up macro, decoded them, and changed them to suit their needs, but I can't imagine that it was a satisfying or productive experience. The UI could only be called bizarre, as it was a direct expression of commands at the code level. Sort of like progaramming in assembler language.

This table is definitely not user-consumable. You can't just change entries in isolation, the column values are not well-defined ideas, it would be a disaster.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be giving customers more control over the router. That is a request I hear often, and one we will probably eventually do something about. I was a user of EDA tools for a long time before I started writing them, and I got down into the guts of the programs that were important to me to do my job. I'm a firm believer in giving customers enough rope to hang themselves, because nobody knows their job better than they do. And the decision on how much risk to take needs to be in their hands.

Dick

[Colorado-PC-Dude]

I was a user of EDA tools for a long time before I started writing them, and I got down into the guts of the programs that were important to me to do my job.

It's refreshing to see that Innoveda has some people that have used and understand the tools in an era when it seems that most tools are designed for Marketing and not the end user.

Sometimes it's hard to remember how hard the folks at Innoveda have worked to make their products better, especially when the deadline was yesterday and you can't get that new "feature" to behave properly.

Dick, and all the others, thanks for all your effort!

Now I'm gonna go back to grumbling about those "features." :-P

Ben