Hi guys,
We at Würth Elektronik are considering improving our 3D models, thinking not only for visualization, but also for usage on Finite Element Simulation.
So we would like to know you opinion on what level of detail you would prefer, from A (less detailed, just a block; to D, most detailed, including the winding terminations)
Thanks!
The current model is D, right? At least for your HCF-2013.
Personally, I think the wire terminations are a must-have. Details of the windings themselves less so.
@AlfVII, you might like to create a poll in the post using the Build Poll tool from the gear icon for easier tracking of the votes.
For the benefit of @AlfVII , I’ve created a poll for 7 days, finishing on the 29th March.
If anyone wishes to add comments, please feel free after voting.
Yes, but we want to expand that to other families, and add proper electrical conduction paths and material information
Is it feasable to have two models per inductor?
But it depends a bit. How much difference between B. and D. is there is there in file size (and processing time needed for rendering). If the difference is small, then there is not much merit left for option B.
I didn’t know that’s possible, but @jmk nicely already did 
We are also interested in your comments/feedback!
You might want to incorporate the OP’s images into your poll to avoid voters having to look at 2 posts.
Unfortunately I’m generally not induced to design such circuits, but others will.
I agree so much! It is extremely useful to check the footprint accuracy
and also tends to increase the file size.
A mixed solution between B (level of details) and D (terminals included) is the best for mechanical integration and also nice for appearance.
That is the exactly approach we used to build the mechanical libraries officially adopted by KiCAD.
Agree.
Great idea, making two models available would be appreciated:
B+: One for mechanical and layout concerns: B + terminations
D: One for electrical and thermal analysis FEM analysis: D
In reality, I guess that B+ would satisfy the vast majority of users, but D sure is nice to have when you need it, and more advanced users will appreciate its availability.
Perhaps the poll is a little premature, based on this thread so far.
John
It’s not a poll option but, ‘B’ with the leads.
I agree. I’d rather see Model B with the winding terminations of D. Excess detail just makes rendering slow with no real benefit.
My opinion too. I use similar inductors from another vendor, with excess detail in windings and even fancy lettering on the part. It leads to very large STEP exports of boards, very slow to import into 3D CAD software. I do need to see the leads and the copper winding “cylinder” as a warning to avoid anything conductive near them.
I agree.
After reading first post I thought that someone have to write that 3D model should not be too detailed but have to have pads to allow to check if it fits on the footprint but I see all here had the same thought.
It would be good to have KiCad footprint for each element to be downloaded from we-online, I think.
I would say the terminals must exist but sure simplify the winding details.
3D models help with the final visual crosscheck that aspects of the footprint
After reading further comments. I agree most with B+.
Verifying pads with the 3D model is a common and important step.
Having the windings themselves drawn would be useful to only a very small minority, and this would also necessitate separate 3D models for each inductor value. When the windings are just a cylinder, then the same 3D model can be used for a whole series.
Also, for the very few people who want to do FEM, adding details to the simplified 3D model probably is not such a big deal.
It’s a pity the poll already has quite a few votes and alternatives such as “B with leads” cannot be added without starting a fresh poll.
Indeed, I wonder why so many people are voting for D. My guess is it’s because of the terminations to the pads, and not for the inductor spiral.
