Thanks for this! After creating this, is there something I can run to link it to my PCB design to fix the net errors?
Tools > Update PCB from schematic.
Although they are switches, each pin and each pad have a number. Those must match.
You may find after “Updating…” , your footprints may be reversed with respect to the symbols. In your case, because the PCB is complete, simply mirror the symbols to get the correct pad/pin associations, then Update again.
1 Like
Sorry do you mean make the traces and pads wider?
Hopefully the pads for the switch mounts are okay, I took the footprint from github.
The pads are currently 1.524mm diameter pads with a 0.762mm diameter hole.
The traces are 0.35mm width - the switches will be getting a lot of use but I wasn’t sure if more than 0.35mm was necessary as the board will only be hooked up to 3.3V.
I can certainly make the pads and traces larger/wider though if that’s advisible
Yes.
Voltage and current didn’t concern me, it was the mechanical robustness and consequent life expectancy that troubled me.
Very small pads attached to thin tracks have a tendency to crack and break far more than big pads with fat tracks.
1 Like
Thanks for the heads up, I’ll make sure I revisit this before exporting the gerber files again - would 2.2mm pads and 0.5mm tracks work? Or should I just go as large as I can whilst ensuring there is enough gap between traces and they are not too close to the edge of the board?
Would it be better to increase the pad sizes that the switches attach to or should I leave those be?
Increase both pads and tracks.
1 Like
I think I’m almost there in terms of the schematic and nets issue -
However when I try and update the PCB from schematic it throws up errors about pads 3 and 4 missing?
I spent a while trying to figure this out and noticed that there are 4 pins allocated in the symbol, so it’s throwing the error because I’ve allocated it to a switch footprint that only has two pins. I didn’t want to tamper with this and cause more errors:
Also when I select the left pin of the switch on the schematic it selects the top pad on the PCB so it seems like it has linked correctly, but it doesn’t do the same for the right-side pin and I couldn’t see a way to link it manually…
Left:
Right:
Sorry for being such a noob (and for the spam, I can only post one screenshot per message) -
I promise I’m learning a lot 
Relax. We all started somewhere…
2 Likes
Looks like someone tried to be clever when that symbol was first designed and hid the two additional pins under the two you can select (I have Opinions on that) but for the sake of your design, I’d just go through and delete the extra pins (2 and 4) and then renumber the remaining pin number 3 to pin number 2. (Or just find a simpler switch symbol in the library)
As it currently stands, KiCad thinks you should have 4 pins, with pins 1 and 2 tied together and then pins 3 and 4 tied together. That’s why you can’t highlight the other pad in the footprint, it isn’t pin number 2, it is actually pin 3 or pin 4. You’ll also notice a line from pad 1 to pad 2 in the footprint where KiCad is trying to tell you that you haven’t connected things in the layout that the schematic says should be connected.
1 Like
Asking questions is good.
4 Likes
Read this FAQ.
By my reckoning, if you open two more forum topics and read four more posts, you will self promote yourself to “Basic” level, and consequently, no longer be a noob 
1 Like
Try a switch-symbol with only two pins.
Instead of the used SW_MEC_5G for instance:
SW_Push (the description says explicit “two pins”)
SW_SPST
2 Likes
Thank you all so much for your infinite wisdom, it feels so good to run the DRC and be able to update the PCB from the schematic with no errors 
I did get a couple of overlapping courtyard errors but Google says this isn’t anything major to worry about as many of the footprints were set up with ‘OTT’ courtyards and to ignore the error to a certain extent…!
I was getting a bit close to the edge of the board and the drill hole so hopefully I can ignore these -
Thank you again everyone, this community is truly awesome and I’m honestly so grateful for all of the input and for everything I have been taught today. 
4 Likes
You’re getting closer to “Basic” forum level.
Now you have spent enough time reading and read enough posts, but you still need to open and scan, for a short time, two more different threads/topics.
1 Like
As you mentioned that the solder mask appears to be applied correctly when checking the Gerber files in GerbView, it indicates that the issue might be related to the DRC settings or footprints within KiCad. I think you’d better review your gerber files. You can use PCBway Online Gerber viewer, for cross-checking:
https://www.pcbway.com/project/OnlineGerberViewer.html
Also, check if the solder mask pads in your footprints are properly defined and aligned with the component’s pads.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.