Your right not worthless but certianly getting left behind. It would be a mammoth task for the owner to create step files as it would more or less mean re-drawing all the models. It would be nice to see KiCAD absorb the project. I know it’s a huge effort and no I’m not putting myself forward so I suspect that is as far as it can go.
Thanks to Walter for the work !
And yes “render” as in to “cause to become”, nothing to do with pixels.
Hi guys
I am the owner of the libraries you are talking about…
Just to give a bit of context, in the last few years I changed work 2 times, I got married (and divorced), moved to another house, and generally speaking had a lot of other things keeping me from managing my libraries as I wanted…
That said, I can assure you that the project is far from dead for me. In my present work I don’t get to use Kicad as much as I did before. In the past I worked for small companies where me being the only electronics engineer allowed me to use my own choice of CAD. Now I am working for a medium sized company, they have Altium, I still use Kicad for my prototypes, but it is not the main cad here…
Unfortunately, this means that I cannot follow the Kicad development as I did before. This thing about step is new to me. I can only say that from what I know of it, step is not an open file format and neither is really well defined. I work with it for mechanical projects, so I know something about it. Using a non-open file format in an open CAD, especially after pissing me off some years ago demanding to change my libraries license from CC-BY-SA to GPL (hence the dual licensing you can find in my project files), is not a good idea for me, and is certainly not consistent with an open philosophy. I don’t want to open a flame here, but this is far from the first time that I don’t concur with the developers, I stopped caring about this kind of issues for Kicad as I see there is no easy way to solve them.
Anyway, I will check out if there is a way to add step files to my libraries. Maybe I can find a way to automate a bit of the work, as I found it for the time they changed the rendering options in the past…
As for keeping my libraries on my own website, this is a personal matter. I don’t like to discuss my motivations here, but guys, let’s think about it… a lot of emails concerning my libraries were always about “can you add a way to download your libs in this other way…”. There are currently 4 different ways to download the libraries, ALL available from the same source at the same time. And there is people out there that automated the copy of my libraries to other online repos, so the libraries are actually available outside my own site. I get quite disappointed when I see people still complaining about the hosting and availability…
Well, I think I wrote quite too much, so I will leave all of you with an “have a nice and productive day”
I’ll try to stay in touch with the STEP issue.
Walter Lain
Step is an international standard. ISO-10303. And as with wrl you are not creating a file by use of a text editor but a CAD program like freecad.
The thing is there is no feasible way to get from a tessellated file format like wrl to step as the former is missing geometry information. (Example you can not extract the center and diameter of a hole from the points in the wrl file. You can make an aproximation but that is not the point of step.)
The way from step to wrl is however always possible (removing information is much easier than getting it back)
I think Walter is not questioning that Step is an international standard. He just says it is proprietary.
Walter says it’s “not well defined”.
EDIT: C and C++ are ISO standards, too. Are they proprietary? Why do Open Source projects use them?
@Rene_Poschl is right. There is no way to convert WRL to STEP so that won’t be a rescue of a project but it would be a completely new project from zero.
Hi @Walter_Lain, it was me that request you to change the material’s parameters! 
(If I remember correctly previously the color information was in the Emissive and the correct place should be on Diffuse parameter)
Since I use mostly 3D Viewer to check the mechanics and don’t need CAD, I still use your models, trusting that they are with correct dimensions!
Thanks!
If you are not on CAD design and maybe would like something more “programatically” with parametric design (FreeCad, Python, CadQuery… ), you can have a check this information:
That way you can create everything without using an UI or caring about STEP (it will be the product of the work, and not the source information).
@maui could help you on this
as @Rene_Poschl already pointed out
from Wikipedia:
EDIT:
some reference links
https://www.cax-if.org/cax/cax_stepLib.php
https://www.cax-if.org/cax/cax_recommPractice.php
Anyway, using a capable mechanical CAD modeler, you don’t need to learn STEP format, but simply export your models to STEP format.
FreeCAD is an open source mechanical CAD modeler powerful and highly user scriptable.
I was not judging if step is proprietary or open format. I was putting in context Walter’s concerns were not about step being a standard.
In any case, I’m not for or against.
I think my purpose has not been understood fully.
After the beginning, I kept my libraries growing, adding only components hand made by me for a simple reason: licensing. Specifically, my own drawings, as interpretation of the official drawings, are my own property, covered by the license I choose, and my choice is a copy left license.
There are better modeled 3D components from most manufacturers nowadays, and you can freely download them, BUT they are not released normally with a copy left license.
The whole point of this is, we have an open CAD, and I think the license of the libraries should also stay open. Otherwise we will end up with the horrid mess that is the GNU/Linux system today. Linus realized the mistake of letting people incorporate non free modules in the kernel too late, so the “■■■■ nVidia” was actually the result of his miscalculation…
I will see what I can do about the step problem, but certainly I don’t have the time anymore to redraw all couple thousands of models from scrap…
All official Kicad libraries are open. There has been a discussion about adding symbols, footprints or mainly 3D model from manufactures.
Rene_Poschl has always been against including any element in the libraries with proprietary license. And he is more than right!
KiCAD library is IMO the biggest 3D MCAD open source library for electronic components.
If you miss some footprint/3D model, just ask here or open an issue… probably you’ll get the model quite fast 
for that reason I started my 3D model repo on late 2015 (even before KiCAD could handle STEP internally), generating 3D STEP models from GPL scripts
Now we have a solid library based on evolution of those scripts
Actually… not? I’ve got an impression that the librarians have too much to do and can’t take “could you make” requests. And I have read that KiCad doesn’t like duplicating (creating Open source) models which can be obtained from the manufacturers (https://kicad.org/libraries/klc/M1.2/).
Welcome to the forum
I fully appreciate the impossibility of converting or redrawing your WRL models to STEP, at one stage your collection was the biggest and best 3D set openly available.
Humm … I’m not a librarian but the history says people here are very reactive to users requests…
If 3D model data provided by a manufacturer is of low quality or not available for public download, then these data may be added if the following criteria are met:
even this doesn’t seem to be applied strictly
look at https://kicad.github.io/packages3d/
i.e.
Connector_Samtec
Connector_Phoenix_GMSTB
etc …
Unfortunately, public download does not mean “open license” at all… that is a big issue from a legal point of view. And being legally faultless is a must if we want to keep the software and libraries open to everyone for the future…
That’s interesting. I know nothing about that, but I doubt the KiCad project’s represantives would have “demanded” to change a licence of a 3rd party repository, especially when it was Open Source. Maybe there has been some misunderstanding.
BTW, the world has changed even in this respect. See https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/creative-commons-by-sa-4-0-declared-one-way-compatible-with-gnu-gpl-version-3. You can use BY-SA-4.0 licence and it’s one way compatible with GPL3, so there’s no need to mention GPL3 explicitly.
IMO this clause should be removed. I don’t see a point of it, knowing that manufacturer files aren’t free. Actually they often aren’t licenced at all, they are just provided (with unexpressed assumption that people use them only for some proper purposes in proper ways). Grabcad is even more restricted.
That’s very, very true. But it doesn’t mean STEP isn’t good for Open Source. If you say it isn’t, you should at least offer good arguments. This far you haven’t showed you fully know what the STEP is about. Using it doesn’t mean you know much about it - I have used it, too, but don’t share your view on that matter (and I don’t claim I would know much about it, either, but I’m ready to learn).
BTW, this is a different subject matter than your library. Everyone respects what you have done and the licencing etc. We also fully understand that life gets in the way etc. I’m not criticizing anything you have done; I just want to make sure that if someone makes decisions or forms opinions, they are based on facts and logic.
Here are facts and logic as far as I can understand them:
Do you have some other presuppositions about STEP which lead to your final conclusion?
Most (all) of manufacturer’s 3D models are licensed as free for personal use… that means you cannot share your 3D model of the pcb+connectors to any of your collaborators outside of your company / or to any customer… that is why we don’t have any manufacturer model inside kicad libs.
Moreover manufacturer’s 3D models are often (always) not aligned to KiCAD origin/footprints, then you cannot simply share your board and tell the user to download the 3d model from the manufacturer as is…
I agree so much if you mean that
(https://kicad.org/libraries/klc/M1.2/ If a manufacturer provides 3D model data for download from its website, these models should not be duplicated in the KiCad library.)
should be removed.
I don’t see any redundancy because manufacturer’s models are not usable to any way of interchange… just ‘good’ enough for internal use
You are drawing false parallels here with c/c++. Fact that it’s standardized by ISO is irrelevant to almost anyone because full language documentation and fully open source compiler implementations are available. That’s not the case with STEP.
Oh and it’s absolutely not well defined. STEP is like a syntax and behind that syntax it can implement a lot of different and often not inter operable and incompatible things which are different APs (application protocols). Every software as far as I know only supports subsets of some of the more common APs and you will frequently run into fun compatibility problems when you try to exchange step between different CADs.
That said, it’s still the best thing we have right now in terms of more or less common standard.
Maybe one day there will be a strict, comprehensive, deterministic and actually free standard accepted by industry, until then that’s what we have to work with.