I’m using KiCad 5.1 for Windows. Fresh install on a machine that hasn’t had the software before.
I created a new project, and plopped down some CONN_02x03 in the schematic.
I annotated and selected footprints, selecting PinHeader_2x03_P2.54mm_Vertical
Imagine my surprise when the pin layout in the schematic didn’t match the pin layout on the board.
Turns out, the pin layout in the schematic symbols numbers counter-clockwise (DIP style) whereas the pin layout in the footprint library numbers odd/even (connector style.)
I don’t seem to recall this being a problem in version 4 which I used in years past, so one of these two must have changed. It turns out, there are now two different connector styles, “odd even” (which matches the footprints,) and “counter clockwise” and just typing CONN_02x03 now selects the wrong one (counter clockwise.)
I guess someone thought this would be helpful to people who want to treat a DIP as a connector or something? Personally, I think this is a significant gotcha / ergonomic regression. I’d rather not have the counterclockwise symbols, or if they are a must have, then have both variants of the PinHeader footprints, too, and use keywords to match up the right connector style to the right footprint.
Schematic symbols don’t have to visually match their physical counterparts. You can use 1x6 with that footprint if you want.
And it’s always your responsibility to make sure footprints you choose are correct.
Maybe librarians will add more as to why there isn’t odd-even connector footprint in standard lib.
There are so many common possibilities, as there is no standardisation where pin 1 is
12 14 16 1a1b 41 36 and so on
34 25 25 2a2b 52 25
56 36 34 3a3b 63 14
As with other symbols and footprints in KiCad, you can create your own library. Copy the connector symbol to your own symbol library. Attach the correct footprint to it with the symbol editor (not in eeshcema). Next time when you need that connector, use the symbol from your library. There’s no need to select the footprint second time, ever.
You are all describing the current state of affairs. I understand the current state of affairs.
What I’m describing is a shitty experience for a user upgrading from the previous version, and a shitty gotcha for users new to the tool.
At a minimum, we could come up with a naming convention for the numbering order, and use keywords in the symbol/footprint matching to get it right automatically 99% of the time. If you somehow want a different ordering in your schematic than in your footprint, that’s the case that should need additional work by the user.
There is no symbol in the official lib that is simply named conn_02x## without a suffix specifying the numbering scheme! (v4 only had odd-even, v5 has all of them with suffix.) So either the symbol you describe is from a personal lib or you installed some third party lib.
Some musical selections to accompany your study of the post by @Rene_Poschl :
" My way "
" My Life "
From the holy writings of the Hebrews and Christians:
. . . so each person did whatever seemed right in his own opinion.
KiCAD is not only flexible enough to accommodate all of these possibilities, it embraces the available diversity in numbering schemes by making them available in the standard libraries. The price of flexibility and diversity is the necessity for increased attention to detail.
I’ve got some HD44780 LCD’s with 2*7 IDC connectors. To be able to mount the LCD’s flush with a front panel, the connectors are soldered into the back of the PCB, which of course results in the odd and even columns being swapped on the IDC connector.
The connectors from the post above are also generic symbols to cover “everything”. KiCad has more specialised connector symbols for lots of other connectors, such as the DB, and RJ-45. It’s even got complete PCI connectors with labeled pins just like IC’s.
And it’s got din, mini din, SD-card, HDMI, USB, screw terminals, XLR and a load of other connectors.
I can’t blame KiCad for not having pre-defined schematic symbols for every connector invented in this incompatible world.
PCB transformers have a similar issue, and for those parts I’m happy that the Footprint Editor is pretty good and it’s trivial to design custom footprints (or modify existing ones).
