Footprint Association should happen in PCBnew

Already in there…

PCBnew has scripting enabled/built in… there is even someone on the forums currently that writes tutorials for this and some others that seem actively involved in using it.
Might want to check them out and ask them if scripting can do that and how you should go about it to get it programmed… :wink:

See, that I don’t understand at all.
What kind of circuitry are you talking about, how many resistors, ICs, etc are involved in your head when you say this?
I’ve never encountered someone who was developing electronic circuits that would start with the layout, never.

I mostly do guitar pedal stuff.
I’m currently designing one that has 28 components. But that doesn’t count, as I started that one as a schematic. For guitar pedals, I would generally prefer to first draw the schematic. However, I would almost rather just draw it on paper and go straight to the schematic in Kicad. I find paper to be without a doubt quicker than making the schematic in Kicad. But having the ratsnest in PCBnew makes it just worth it to remake the schematic in Eeschema; for all but the simplest designs.

However, I made a guitar pedal power supply in Fritzing which I am now remaking in Kicad. It has 41 components in the complete layout I have in Fritzing, and it looks like I never even touched the schematic in that program. However, it’s actually a fairly simple for it’s part count, as there’s much duplication; 9 of those components are linear regulators for different voltages, each with an accompanying capacitor. But it also has a rather clean layout which a schematic would not make easier to understand.
In the Kicad remake of that project, I only touch the schematic when I need it for some reason, such as when placing the ground plane.

you use kicad more like a sketch book

I do also but i use real parts.
if it turns out that the real part during layout did not fit the bill, i
change the part to another real life part.

When I started with Kicad I had nothing, i made every single part from
scratch.
What I did had was previous experience from many other tools.

I understand the way you reason and that Kicad need to cater to the guys
who just occasinally want to do something quick and some of us who spend
lot of time in the tool.

I think the balance is already in place, you can do it either way.

regards
/Nicholas

Me? I, use Kicad “more like a sketch book”? As opposed to what? I don’t understand.

Honestly, although I am definately a hobbyist & not a professional, I don’t like to rush what I do. In Kicad, I actually like to spend time bringing my board to perfection.
What I proposed is meant to shave off redundant time; time spent dealing with the software.

My workflow is the following:
simulate -> schematic, (part definition) -> complete part definintion -> layout

To be clear: I also don’t like CvPcb.
Lets say you have the capacitors C1 - C100 in CvPcb in the list, I can’t decide which footprint C51 should have in CvPcb because I don’t know what’s the function of this capacitor and based on that the requirements on that part - that’s something only the schematic can tell me.

That’s why I think the footprint definition (and part definition, part no., manufacturer etc.) should be done in the schematic. And that’s already there (assign footprint and component properties), improved by the upcoming component selector.

Layout is the last thing, done when the part definition is complete. If you have to change the package of a part to fit in the layout, change it in the schematic and read in the new updated netlist - the schematic is the source, layout the destination, not the other way round.

That’s what I always hated about Eagle/Altium, because often there is a right symbol and a right part, but not associated together to a “device” with part number, manufacturer etc. So I have to copy them together, and save them before I can continue with the schematic.
I can’t say it better than this:

Eagle’s way of handling things really breaks my concentration and gets me distracted as I look up specific parts to use rather than just putting a generic symbol down and worrying about the exact part later.
(Quote from http://www.eevblog.com/forum/eagle/eagle-workflow)

Blown-up libraries with a lot of “different” devices for one device-type, only because of different packages or manufacturer ? Changing the package of an IC, you have to delete the schematic symbol although the new symbol is the same ?
Changing the manufacturer of parts, you have to delete all components in the schematic, create a new device in the library, add it again to the schematic and place it again on the layout although neither the schematic symbol nor the footprint is different ?
Thats professional, really ?

Starting to create a schematic (from existing simulation schematic), for generic parts which are available for many manufacturers, I don’t want to think about the part number, manufacturer or footprint at all.
If anything, let’s say for capacitors, I want to define what type of capacitor it is and assign the corresponding footprint.

When the schematic is done, it’s time to go into the part definition for (until now) undecided generic parts, packages & part numbers, manufacturer, supplier etc.
And these information go into the property fields of the component in this schematic, not into a library.

Discussing the part numbers and suppliers with the purchasing department, need to change some part numbers ? No problem at all, simply edit the property field and re-geneate the BOM. Schematic and layout don’t need to be changed at all!

I understand that for large-scale companies, the “Atomic parts” may be useful, when other people than the developer decide what parts are allowed to use and maintain a company-specific library fixed with part numbers etc. You can do this right now with KiCad, create your own library and preselect a footprint or apply a footprint filter in the component and don’t use the generic parts.

I think for the whole community, it doesn’t make sense to have thousands of capacitors in the library just to cover all manufacturers and packages. Who should create or even maintain this ?
Therefore, components and footprints should not be tied up, if anything, a component should have a default suggestion for a footprint or a filter to make it easy to assign the footprint quickly.

1 Like

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE.

But, you were not complete in the ridiculousness of this mess.

In some cases, for EACH AND EVERY part number for the PART, there is also a different ORDER number for what PACKAGE each part comes in.

All I want to do is draw a resistor on the schematic page to complete my circuit.

Some of my circuits will be the same electrically; but some of them will be through hole parts for maker space assembly and others will be smaller SMT for manufactured assembly.

KiCad works well with concept that not all parts need to be assigned specific part numbers.

For the MAKER SPACE, I’m going to use GENERIC through hole spacing and use a ShapeOko to cut the traces. Atomic parts would NOT work in this situation.

Have Fun!

KiCad roxors! … lol