Please excuse me if my question is 50% (??) off topic…
Is this sort of consideration an advantage to ordering boards using Gerber files?
The last time I ordered boards, I used 8.X…probably 8.07 and uploaded my KiCad pcb file directly to the vendor website. This all went smoothly and the boards were good. But it sounds to me like this method might introduce added risk when using the next 9.X version? So Caveat Emptor says it is better to use gerbers and review them carefully before uploading them to the pcb vendor?
Personally I always use gerbers rather than uploading a board file (I personally have not used gerber alternatives like IPC-2581 or ODB++ although I think the same advantages apply).
With gerbers, I’m not at the mercy of the manufacturer’s KiCad converter, which among other things they need to make sure is up to date with every annual major release of KiCad. Instead I use a standard flow that all users of all EDA packages go through, which I expect to be better tested and more widely used than the KiCad-specific one. I can inspect the gerber output from KiCad to make sure it matches my design intent, and which then goes through an industry-standard flow to manufacturing.
Just my 2 cents. For what it’s worth I don’t have any experience directly uploading KiCad files, so I’m not trying to say it’s an inherently unreliable method, I just prefer the other flow in theory.
The only texts that I usually set to invisible are the component values on the fabrication layer, as they usually take up too much room. I can still set them to invisible in the component properties but not in the text properties. So it makes no sense to me…
I was about to post about the same problem, not only in the footprint editor but also in the pcb editor, I have some copper areas as footprint that do not need a reference and it really took me a while to find out how to make them invisible from the silkscreen:
I very much would like to be able to click on the text and hide as before, being unable to create footprints with hidden text can stay if it has cause problems already, but I like being able to quickly remove unwanted stuff
EDIT: I noticed this changes in v9.0.1 and still is like this in the newest test build
I have the 9.0.2 D/L and it is missing in my windows win11 version. I really need it to be able to hide all text capability on anything I want to hide. It is just good practice. Don’t allow printing hidden text, it is hidden for a reason. Don’t take flexibility away from the designer, and make the designer keep up with his hidden text. Unless the text is on the wrong layer (copper) it can’t short the traces.
All text is visible by default, and if the user choses to hide it by default, it’s their choice. Like everything else, they know what they’re doing if they change a default setting.
Now all the references are just in the way of everything else on the F.Fab and B.Fab layers, polluting the view. Deleting them or moving them to another layer is a lot more work as they have to be done individually, or I have to go into the Footprint editor and do them one by one. So much additional work for something that was a user option??
I have worked out a work around for the visibility problem (I think it is a problem) by moving unwanted text on the user2 layer. then turn off visability for user2. It sux as a work-around, B/c if you have to import a new netlist, you have to move them again. unless you turnoff the selections about deleting existing footprints, but then if you need that on it becomes a pain. Please give us the rights to just hide all the fields we want to hide. I don’t want to delete the field (especially {REFERENCE} field incase I actually need it for something. would rather just hide it. Who is with me on this??
For any board design I first disable the fabrication layers. It is always messy and I have no need for it.
Than I select each and every single text thing there is, and I uncheck the visibility box. I mean for real, if my boards are baked in the oven of JLCPCB, I really not need customers to see which resistor is called R1203. Neither do I. And my designs are not big or expenisve enough. If something breaks (not happened so far) I can fix it by hand or replace the board entirely.
I manually add all information in silk text by hand so people know where to stick which wire in which terminal block.
If however, I make a through hole design. I still don’t use reference numbers, but I turn on the Fab layers and I move the values (capacitor and resistor values n such) or descriptive IC names to the silk layers.
My DIY boards will tell you where to solder the BC547. But it won’t tell that it is secretely called Q12.
Short version: I have been really happy with the toolbox and the things it allowed me to do with the silk texts. As long as I can keep doing what I’ve been doing, I’ll happily upgrade to V9.
