Hi there,
I searched for it, but I can’t find a footprint (or 3d model) for the rather common 6mm flat pins. Maybe it’s because I’m partly unsure how it is called correctly in english.
If someone could bring me onto the right path.
Here is the kind of part I mean:
5mm (or 5.08mm) grid dimension
Check some distributors. Not exactly what you are looking for but this might get you close. See if you can at least get as a proper datasheet to refer too.
Sorry hermit,
I don’t understand. I know where I can obtain those parts. I just can’t find it in the kiCad library.
Footprint for this would be 2 THT pads and some silk screen art.
< 5 minutes to draw yourself
(Al least after you’ve learned to work with footprint libraries and such).
It may, or may not, be in the included libraries. The link is an example showing the distributer may provide what you are looking for if it isn’t included. Plus, we need a data sheet to see EXACTLY what you are looking for.
Hmm.
Hermit, the link you posted describes the part I mean, yes.
Since this is a standard part (with in this case I mean, that the dimensions are standardized) which many manufacturers produce I would have guessed that it is to be found in the kiCad library - I just don’t know under which term I have to look.
Regarding that I would like to have an answer of someone who knows it this part exists in the library and if, under which name.
If it’s not in the library - that’s ok. I just want to know.
No offense paulvdh, but this is not the answer I’m looking for.
I think that these parts were proposed for inclusion, but never made it into the official libraries. https://github.com/KiCad/Connectors.pretty/issues/56. I don’t see any footprints named “tab” or “faston”.
Thanks bobc for the link to the thread and the clarification.
At least here in Germany I don’t think these parts are licensed by one company, but that’s a different story.
After googling a bit, there doesn’t seem to be a central place where inofficical libraries are collected in a easy searchable manner.
Do you think that the project would profit from such a thing or do you think that demands like mine are rather and uncommon and all the guys have the parts they need at hand (or drawing them, themselves)?
Or the other way around: I would love to help to design the parts and include them in the standard library, but how difficult is this process in the project or how much bureaucracy is involved. Any insight?
If you have the time and patience to get through the KLC and also meet maintainers often arbitrary requests, then see https://kicad.org/libraries/contribute/
The question is not whether such a thing should exist, but who would maintain it? It’s a lot of effort and very few people are interested in helping out.
Thx for the link.
Yes, the KLC looks a bit intimidating 
I wonder what the extra effort would be from building a complete library just for oneself against building it for the kicad library. I’m curious - I’ll at least try to find out an answer.
What you missed in that link was Mouser, and others, provide footprints and 3D models for some things so if you do a proper part lookup then many times you find all you need. Such link get you quicker results here too because we know EXACTLY what you’re looking for.
The detail that I don’t think that you are getting is a hassle that those of us with experience have learned to live with. Even if you are using a standardized connector, as a board designer we can only trust that the interconnect side is standard. The end that we are most concerned about (the part that connects to the PCB) is not in any way standard. Even from the same manufacturer two different families of the same connector can require different footprints. (Switches are the same way.) That is why there is the repeated question for the exact part number that you plan to use.
Providing a datasheet link will also help engender more assistance so we that are offering our time for free to help don’t have to waste our time on basic research.
In the case of fastons there are some things that are kind of standardized. One example are pad placements and sizes. ( There is a small number of general variations per size)
There is however a huge amount of variation when it comes to fins for increased mechanical strength. ( This was the reason why we did not pursue the generic route for these types of connectors. The naming convention encoding all this would have been way too complex and we were sure we will forget something. )
Not perfect, though should do for basic display purposes to get a rough idea what it can look like.
FASTON_PCB_tab.wrl (50.8 KB)
FASTON_PCB_tab.step (181.4 KB)
That was a reasonable decision. I commend you for comprehending the details of the situation, and deciding on a particular course of action rather than allowing things to drift into an annoying state governed solely by historical precedent (i.e., “Well that’s not the best way to do things, but it’s how we did it last time.”).
At the same time I must appreciate the situation @el_hannos finds himself in. This is a fairly common part, although some of us have been embarrassed because it comes in several, quite similar, sizes. Is there a reasonable way to include at least a generic representation in the standard libraries? Perhaps it would include a text disclaimer on the Courtyard layer, warning the user that the footprint is not optimum, and should be customized for the particular part being used.
As @paulvdh pointed out, the footprint itself isn’t difficult if you remember to include acreage around it for connecting and disconnecting the terminal. For many of us, creating a 3-D mechanical model is a much larger obstacle. (Thank you, @jos , for the contributions!) By placing a generic representation into the KiCAD libraries, users would have a more complete starting point for creating parts in custom libraries.
Dale
And when it does’t work out of the box and someone orders boards …
I’d be inclined to include the disclaimer in a generic footprint acting as a placeholder and a link to someplace that links up to a distributor with links to the models.
Or more simply a placeholder explaining WHY there is no footprint. At least it would keep people from looking.
OH! Yes, I missed that aspect. That’s new to me. Great, thx!
Thx for making this point clear.