V5.0.2 Silkscreen problems, maybe a bug?

Hi, I have a number of custom footprints in my own library that I have used many times in V4.0.x, however I just imported some into a new PCB in V5.0.2 and the silkscreen completely covers all the pads.

In pad edit mode the silkscreen checkbox is ticked in V4.0.7 but the screen does not cover the pad, but the only way to stop that in V5.0.2 is to uncheck the silkscreen checkbox in pad edit mode on each pad.

Copy pad properties works on one pad at a time.

The push pad properties does not change it and there seems to be no global pad edit for the footprint.

Is this just an anomaly from V4 to V5 or is it a bug? I am running V5.0.2 under windows7 64bit pro.

Does this only happen with your custom footprints?
(or also with other footprints when V4. -> V5.)

If you compare your footprint library with a default footprint, and compare the pads in a text editor, do you see any differences ?

Also noticed that with my custom footprints, TH only (SMD not affected).
Previously on 4.0.7, now on 5.0.2

The issue might be that the F.Silk layer used to be activated by default for new THT pads when designing footprints. Now when creating new THT pads in the footprint editor only the two mask layers are active by default.

I forget when this changed happened. As long as when exporting gerbers you have the setting to mask the silkscreen with the solder mask turned on it shouldn’t effect your boards.

1 Like

There is no change from v4 to v5 in how kicad treads pads with silk selected. I however suspect that it was displayed differently in the legacy canvas (That canvas uses a strange xor rendering instead of transparency as the new ones do. So it is easier to see that silk is on top of pads in the new render engine.)

The reason why v5 removed the default silk on is that the footprint editor default settings where aligned to the KLC. I do not know the rational why silk defaulted to on in the past for THT pads. I suspect this comes from the early days of kicad where silk over pads might have been used as a workaround for some missing feature. Or it was a simple programming error that simply was not annoying enough to be fixed.

Thanks to all again.

Having finally got to grips with the new way of doing things, I must confess that V5 is a big step up over V4, so iu wait for V6 with bated breath, and wonder what we will have to re-learn again.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.