Macos 10.14 install of 5.1.4 - all works great and STEP files that I’ve put onto my own footprints plus many of the library STEP files such as diodes and SMD resistors render fine in the 3D viewer, but I noticed SOIC-8 were missing.
Checking in the footprint editor, the .wrl file was referenced but not the STEP file. However having checked the file system the STEP file is there and adding it manually solves the issue.
However that can’t be the solution - to manually add masses of standard library STEP file references in the footprint editor. Surely that’s part of the standard library setup that comes with macOS?
So what I’m am missing? How do I reinstall / recreate / relink the standard Kicad libraries so they show the 3D STEP as well as WRL models?
BTW I’ve already seen and read many of the articles about fp-lib-table and the upgrade from Kicad 4 to 5 which doesn’t apply to me. The libraries seem to be properly installed, just that the STEP model references are missing for SOME of the parts in there which is very odd.
Please give the exact footprint and other file name(s) (there are several soic-8 footprints, I’m not going to test them one by one in case they all happen to be correct in my installation).
Example in mine is SOIC-8-1EP_3.9x4.9mm_P1.27mm_EP2.29x3mm
You will see it has a ref for the WRL file of SOIC-8-1EP_3.9x4.9mm_P1.27mm_EP2.29x3mm.wrl
But there is no STEP file in mine, although the (a?) correct STEP file exists in the same path but with a different name of SOIC-8_3.9x4.9mm_P1.27mm.step and if I add that manually to the footprint then everything works perfectly…
All the Kicad components have a ‘placeholder’ path for a 3d-model named identically to the footprint (but, of course, not every model will be provided). The name of the model is the same as the footprint - here it would seem that all the footprints with the exposed pads are named additionally according to the size of the pad.
The exposed pad series of footprints have been created more recently than the 3d model.
I presume that for the sake of the 3d view, the same model would be appropriate whatever the size of the EP (as you can’t see the pad when the component is in place).
This throws up a problem - should there be additional models for all variations (even if invisible) - here there are 10 SOIC-8 EP footprints which would all be served OK by the same 3D model.(EDIT - actually 4 different sized pads +/- thermal bias). Having the size of the EP +/- thermal in the footprint name, according to the KLC, means that the 3D model should be named identically.
I presume this is only likely to be a problem with visually identical models fitting different footprints but potentially this would mean a new named 3d file for each variant even though they are identical.
in this situation, would it be possible to alias these additional (and unnecessary models) to a suitable ‘base’ model?
John I think you’ve hit the nail on the head and summed up perfectly - the 3D model is indeed common to all footprints of that size irrespective of the EP - assuming you don’t want to look at the bottom of your component before it’s on the board of course
I had - wrongly it seemed - assumed that this had been thought through in the library naming and management but I’m inferring from your point that the current library implementation only works when the naming is exactly the same.
My concern is that whilst I could add the ones I currently use, library updates would presumably overwrite that - I always try not to change anything to do with standard libraries for exactly that reason.
Also - being lazy (!) - I was hoping this was already known about and solved but again I’m inferring that this isn’t something for which there’s a proper solution yet?
Fair point - I guess that correctly sizing the EP in a model might be significant in some situations - any FEM/Thermal analysis comes to mind, so it is not purely cosmetic. And I agree that having a convention is there for a reason and to avoid nasty surprises!
The point is still partly valid however for the presence or absence of thermal vias. These footprints are obviously named differently but here the models should be identical.
Obviously this makes the issue of unnecessary extra model bloat & how to manage it less pertinent.
I did actually check the EP STEP model - and it does have the correct size pad. Are these scripted?
True Rene - but the point is the current library sets appear to be missing 3D models for EP parts, even though there is a ‘good enough for some people’ STEP file available.
Would it not be better to link that file at least, rather than having no 3D rendering at all?
You have the option, just assign the model you want. But don’t expect the official library team to make compromises that they then need to fix some time down the road just so you do not need to put in a little bit of work.
I think the root problem isn’t a missing 3D model - as is well known, not all footprints don’t or can’t have 3D models. The problem is that the end user can’t know or see anywhere why the footprint seems to have a model but doesn’t actually have it. That’s a usability issue. If I see a file name in a footprint I expect the model to exist if models for other footprints exist when a file is given.
Couple of changes in KiCad could help.
Inform the user clearly and by default when the file given in the model file name field isn’t found.
Add ability to add several file names but mark only some of them active. Notice that the current Preview tick mark works only for the footprint preview, not for the board view!
After 2 is implemented, add the less perfect model file name but don’t activate it by default.
This way a new user wouldn’t need to wonder what is going on and they could activate the less perfect model without browsing through the file system, taking responsibility for problems.
Earlier versions of kicad threw an error message reporting all missing footprints, we got quite a few confused users because of that. So i guess there is no way to make it right for everyone.
I don’t suggest throwing error messages. I suggest adding non-intrusive information to the “3D Settings” dialog page of footprints. As far as I can see, most users can and will open this dialog page when the try to find out the reason of missing footprints.
And after a couple of years of using KiCad is still find this convention of having file names for non-existing files strange, although I know why it is so and can easily work with it. You have to admit that quite many new users have been confused by this. There should be no reason to deny the fact that the situation could be better. Giving more information in the UI would be an easy solution.
I would love 3d models not to rely on file names but also have some form of library system. It is simply not really portable this way.
It also makes it near impossible for users to simply add their own 3d models as it would require them to be added into the same libs as the ones that are provided by the library team. In reality we setup footprints not such that users can easily add their own models but such that we librarians can add user contributions much more easily. User models will always require modifying the footprint with the current system
The least we would need is alternative models that are only used if the main model is not found. (right now adding multiple models means all of them are shown at the same time. This means if the user model and the library model both exist then both are shown on top of each other)
