I get what is you perspective as I also make a couple of homemade PCBs a year, but I think your approach is a bit heavy for lack of a better word. By removing all footprint pads from F.Cu, you make sure that the produced PCB will work 100% as there is no chance that you will connect track from the top side to the THT component, where you will not be able to solder (e.g. IDC connector, terminal block, radial leaded electrolytic capacitors, …)
But you deprive yourself of additional degree of freedom, where you can use THT components that allow soldering from the top side (DIP packages, resistors, …) and you can also use them as a via if you solder a pad from top and bottom side.
Obviously this approach is error prone and sometimes it happens that the designer connects a track from the top side to component where soldering is impossible, but such mistakes are rare (at least in my case)
Removing F.Cu pads from the footprint libraries is just too aggressive step in my opinion if you also design PCBs for fabrications. As you then have to keep two sets of libraries which I imagine is a major PITA.
Writing all this gave me an idea for an action plugin which would:
check and brighten (highlight) all the tracks which are on F.Cu and which connect to pads which are on F.Cu. Then the designer can evaluate if there are any errors or not.
check the locations of all vias and brighten (highlight) vias which are under components. A via under DIP is not a problem, while a via under IDC connector is a problem when the vias are mad manually on home made board without any metalization.
That is a fair point and it maybe something I may do in the future if appropriate. For certain components like horizontally placed resistors, diodes etc it would be fine but the majority of my parts are digital ICs , DIL resistor packs, IDC connectors, etc at the moment.
I will bear it in mind though and thank you for your input.
I have not looked at any of the scripting in KiCAD yet but I think I will investigate a bit over the next week. My python is poor but as it is C based I should pick it up quickly.
DIL packaged ICs I have soldered top and bottom at 2 layer PCB with no plated holes 40 years ago having no precision soldering iron.
If you only can go with one track between DIL pins I would left pads at top.
I have read that using thermo-transfer people reach to made PCBs with 10 mils (0.25mm) tracks.
Added later:
Being at your place I would probably consider not deleting pads at top but replacing circular pads with oval. It will left enough copper for soldering but allow more space between pads.
I really do not think I have a reading comprehension problem. Also, I never stated that the concerns were irrelevant.
And, I’m not the only one:
After considerable effort on my part, it is still not clear to me exactly what the problem actually is.
One. Using leaded through hole parts, the leads can be bent to fit the board, the board does not have to fit the part. It would be trivial to alter a few existing Footprints.
Two. If only wanting to use one side of a board, use SMT parts.
Three.
No good explanation, in my opinion, was provided for wanting to do home spun PCBs significantly different than most common DIY methods. Better results may be obtained by using the more common methods.
Five.
As the Footprints are significantly different, this design process will end up requiring the time to create a second production prototype board design in KiCad.
The word “nonsensical” is similar in meaning to “illogical”.
I mentioned such to indicate that my following answer may not be the answer to the issue at hand. Yet, was meant to further the dialog to work towards a solution.
ON EDIT: The word “nonsense” is typically used to indicate that a comment has no meaning; gibberish or rubbish. Isn’t English fun?!
Hmm, then it seems strange to not focus on that final design ?
Will the final design also be made not plated thru, top and bottom soldering ?
If no, and you will use the common PTH flows, then you should start the design targeting those flows.
Part of what a prototype does, is prove the overall design flow, before you hit the ‘production’ button.
That mans most designers try to diverge the least, from that final flow.
If you really want a hybrid flow, one means to do that could be to allocate a specific and unique PAD SIZE to the Top layer to-be-removed-for-home-etch pads.
You then edit the Gerber file and change the DCODE for that special size to shrink/remove all those pads.
A non-edited file is used for production.
At no point did I ask for a critique! I asked one question. So thank you for the ‘you are doing it wrong’ advice. Maybe if I give even more WHY you may understand a little more. Not that I have to or is anything to do with the [SOLVED] question … but there you go.
These boards are just a way of moving my working circuit off of the breadboard onto something less flimsy with less chance of pulling wires or getting lost. As you all know, breadboards have their own foibles/ weaknesses. Cracked /broken solid wires, pull-outs, no ctrl D after moving stuff!, thin resistor legs in a enlarged hole etc, there are a few, let alone wrong hole placement after rejigging. At some point I like to ‘save’ my physical circuit by making a homebrew PCB that is much more hardy. That will then plug into another breadboard for the remaining part of the design, that may take weeks or months, depending on other projects. I am then much more confident to carry on and have additionally freed up some breadboards.
The final design never has any bearing on the home made PCB component placement so I have no issue about “wasting time doing it twice”. This may not be how other people work. But it reduces my stress levels and gives me the ability to draw a line under a ‘completed’ working example of the building blocks of a part of my circuit. Personally, I get much less ‘issues’ doing it this way and it suites me and how I work and learn.
Everyone else is free to work their own way without issue from me!
I think that problem is:
To use top layer for making connections when:
using DIL packages,
having technology 0.5mm/0.5mm,
needing to go with tracks betwean DIL pads.
Not all prototypes are the destination circuit prototypes. And I think such prototypes are the subject here.
I am ordering prototype PCBs from PCB manufacturer and wait each time 5 working days. Actually (to save costs) I have always ordered them when my PCB manufacturer had a promotion day - about 80% discount of initial costs. Since some time they announce “PCB day” typically once per month, but you are never sure. So really my time for prototypes is much longer. Fortunately I am doing some tests for future use so no hurry.
I understand that if someone mastered the thermotransfer technology then he wonts to use it to make prototypes fast.
Isn’t it great to have a PCB 30 minutes after finishing its project?
