Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1417991
Shaughnessy: I was wondering about ODB++ Manufacturing. Is this more or less comparable to the DPMX CFX flow? McGoff: Yes. Of course, we would suggest that it's more comprehensive, and it's coordinated and easier to keep in sync. We've got custom- ers using all three elements, so it's widely used. Again, this is something that our customers have asked for, and we've delivered. It's not the only game in town on any of these, but when you create it and customers adopt it, you owe it to them to continue and enhance it and develop it for their needs. Shaughnessy: Yeah. Well, what's next for ODB? Where do you go from here? Clark: e ODB++ format is driven based upon what our users come to us with, as well as what technology is coming out. ere are needs that we've recently addressed, and you might say, "Wow, I'm surprised these haven't been addressed years ago." Some things like inten- tional shorts being transmitted from design into manufacturing. Intentional shorts to this day are documented on a document layer, and then no one finds that. Next the manufacturer calls and say, "Hey, do you know that signal one and signal two are shorted together?" "Yeah, we do. It says it on the document." "Oh, we didn't see it." at's the kind of messaging you get there. We added the intentional shorts, and obvi- ously, the idea is that everything you add will be utilized by the soware products on each end or throughout the flow. at goes regard- less of whatever we add, so you have the inten- tional shorts we've included in stackup infor- mation. We included stackup zones for rigid-