Yes indeed! Humans always get it right. Unlike those scripts, which were written by humans, that used numerical data entered by humans, … 
1 Like
I agree. If your script-generated parts are crap, then fix the script so it can generate better parts (and lots of them). Probably many of the footprints that people curse today were lovingly hand-crafted and then never updated for new technology because it was too much work. That might not happen if all the hard work were put into the script, instead.
1 Like
The solution is then to begin with scripts which the outputs are reviewed during a scheduled session with whoever wants to be involved? The library will maintain component dimensions rather than footprint data to account for constantly changing standards (this is a reality). This will also allow us to provide the minimal, nominal, and extended versions of the footprints used in IPC-7351C.
Footprints which are unique (e.g. micro-USB connectors) will be also reviewed for approval via the live conference method (in a separate session).
If you have a pull request which you’d like to get reviewed, you’re obligated to show up at a session for 10 minutes while the footprint is discussed.
I believe that the best way to validate dimensions of a footprint to a datasheet is have multiple people look at it. At work, I have at least two of my colleagues spend 5-10 minutes to double check new footprints for me.
Again, this will be slow and ugly to start.
1 Like
Bump. Just attended Open Hardware Summit in Portland, OR.
We need KiCAD libraries to support the community.
This library needs to be the best in the world with the goal of supporting millions of people all over the world as creating hardware becomes more relevant to their survival and success.
As many presenters showed, the success of their open source projects is directly related to the community.
What’s the next step? Any of the library maintainer’s want to speak on this?
1 Like
Exactly: no silkscreen below the components.
That’s not what we tried to divulge. What is supposed to be completely visible after assembly is the outline only. This is the silkscreen around the body of the part. Any symbol inside is fine.
What’s the next step? Any of the library maintainer’s want to speak on this?
I still think we just need more manpower. Are you interested in becoming a librarian?
Scripting can be great and I invite anyone to create useful scripts. We have a folder that can be used to commit these.
Another option is creating new footprint generators that can be used within the GUI. We recently created a repository to contain these.
1 Like
The wording could be improved then.
@Carl_Poirer Yes, I am interested in becoming a librarian. Being part of the current method is the best way to move forward. What is first step to being a librarian?
All we ask is a first pull request as practice. Did you open one already? Of so, please send me the link. You can find my personal email in the git history of any repo I committed to or you can simply send me a personal message in this forum.
Carl
not true (I’m an IPC committee member).
The purpose of the IPC is to develop standards so every new designer doesn’t have to re-create the wheel. You can’t distribute copies of the standards, but you can freely share any work you create that conforms to the standard. You are free to deviate away from a standard if you know what you are doing, of course, but if you don’t know what you’re doing, you should stick to the foundation that the IPC has derived from hundreds of companies and volunteers who contributed their experience towards reaching a consensus.
For example, if you aren’t sure what size trace you should use for a high current requirement, there are people who have already spent countless hours figuring that out and it is published as
IPC-2152 “Standard for Determining Current Carrying Capacity in Printed Board Design”.
I CANNOT give you that document, but I can freely give you an Excel calculator that is based on the standard. ( it’s at HowToPCB.net if you want it)
By the way, the track width calculator included with KiCAD is wildy inaccurate (the K value) but it errs on the safe side. No one will get in trouble by using the values it provides
Jack (aka “the new guy”)
4 Likes
I’ve never seen the “value” field used on a PCB board.
Maybe it could be a visual aid when you are placing components, but it would not be typical for that info to be anywhere in the fabrication data (Gerbers). It might be exported to the assembly data files, but that would also not be typical (assembler needs to know partnum, refdes, location, rotation) The only place I’ve ever seen the value field appear is in the BOM and on the SCH
Jack
I hope I didn’t misunderstood that statement, but I’ve seen some during my lifetime… and a couple of examples are pretty easy to find via google even:
PS: I don’t do that either
1 Like
Common to see the value on a kit pcb
That example is well done. Very neat and gets both values and references on the board without being overly cluttered. (Well, maybe just a little bit cluttered.) I definitely see the value of doing that if the assembly process will be done in a DIY hobby environment. You would find it very difficult to add the values to an SMT-based assembly and retain legibility. Fortunately, the DIY world tends to avoid SMT.
Dale
P.S. - What do you think of the curved traces on that board?
Looks neat, hobbyists who like that look might even have the time and desire to do it.
For everybody else that needs stuff to turn over pretty fast this either comes automated or not at all
I have no idea if a circuitry will work better if one does it for the speeds I usually deal with. People in the 10MHz+ area might think completely different about this, but we know that KiCAD will get there eventually 
that is a beautiful example…
I suppose I live in a different realm. I haven’t seen through-hole components like that in a LONG time (like, the 90’s) except connectors and large power devices. I can tell you that none of the electronic companies that I have designed for are doing that, but it does look pretty convenient for hobbyists.
The components most people use these days for higher-volume products are too small for all that info, so you would spend more time turning OFF the field than what it is worth for the few parts that could be labelled. That said, if there are people that want that feature and the open source supports it, why not?
(Just make sure there is a way I can turn all that stuff OFF!)
Just so everyone is on the same page here, the pictures you showed are IPC recommendations for the ASSEMBLY layer, which is not used by the bare board fabricator. The general trend is to use the LEAST silkscreen ink possible for real products (polarity mark and other SMALL features). Why waste a lot of ink on high-volume products that no one will ever need? As long as field service or lab technicians can reference good documentation as needed, of course…
1 Like
For the record, I am a "like-minded’ designer, and will cheerfully support the IPC library standard that the electronics industry has worked so hard to create.
In case you didn’t know, the IPC offers a FREE footprint wizard, and if you don’t have a clear grasp of fundamental library concepts, it is a reliable place to start
The link to the “IPC Library Expert” software is here:
http://www.ipc.org/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=PCB-Tools-and-Calculators
(the naming convention is a different subject that I cannot address,
I think it is still being discussed by people smarter than me)
OK, I promise I’m not going to be spewing in the KiCAD forums every day, but I just stumbled into this.
I haven’t worked on any libraries for over 15 years (since I started at Caterpillar) so I never even knew it existed for KiCAD until just now (but I know the PCBlibraries people personally, they are trustworthy)
https://www.pcblibraries.com/Products/FPX/KiCad.asp
Seems weird to pay $499 to support a free open-source system,
but the library is the bedrock of electronics development.
Don’t screw it up!
I had overlooked this post. I would like to share some comments and have feedback.
My experience along the years with different assemblers drove me mad in my relationship with standards.
Following the vendor footprints recommendations, one assembler did its job without complaints and another made me change the pads’ lenght/width, for the same board and same component.
Another, asked the manufacturer to make the stencil 50% smaller for the fine pitch ICs.
Another told us to make every pad smaller because he spent too much solder paste.
And always, I repeat, following datasheet land patterns.
Most of the times we cannot choose the neither manufacturer nor the assembler, so I made my own folder with footprints that worked so far.
In all cases the assemblers were European or Nort-America ones.
What are the differences between Kicad and IPC compliant footprints regarding the land patterns (pad dimensions and distances) ?
Idea: Responsive Footprints: footprints that can respond to various needs.