Agree.
The windings probably take a lot of extra memory just to look “pretty”.
3 Likes
I’m voting D because its more complete. If B+ as suggested would exist i would vote for D anyway. Biut i would definitely want a more complete D. It is always useful to have a more complete model, sure its bigger in size and more unwieldy in big assemblies.
See here is the thing. its relatively easy to simplify existing models, hell some CAD application can do this automatically. A is pointless benefit for me is absolutely 0 i can autogenerate a box from any of the models. C seems like no benefit in complexity reduction compared to D. B is a bit underwhelming again i can model that in minutes and most likely auto generate a enclosing volume for the complexity… B+ would be a good compromised. But i can go from D to B+ in 2 minutes even without automation if i need to. In the end would prefer to have both so i can switch between them easily.
So i would only root for B+ if i have D to begin with but realistically I would want to have the real windings because i would need to model those in anyway.
It’s not in the poll: B with leads.
2 Likes
B with leads for me too.
2 Likes
What is easy for you is not easy for all others. Even I have learned how to do terminal blocks models with FreeCAD to repeat what I have done 2 years ago I would have to start from reading my cheat sheet I have done about it. And I’m sure with some notes I have done I will ask: what author had in mind when writing it.
How to go from D to B+ I would even not know from what to start as I did not understand fully what is going on in the tree window in FreeCAD.
Seeing that some people need so detailed model (I don’t understand what for) I agree that having both (B+ and D) would probably be satisfactory for all.
About switching easily - shouldn’t KiCad have a global switch changing in all footprints between coarse and detailed model?
What is easy for you is not easy for all others.
Obviously. But thing is your problems is really that your using freeCAD to begin with.
How to go from D to B+ I would even not know from what to start
Its one extrude. Which should be most fundamental part of using a 3D cad
Most of us here do not have Solidworks or other pro CAD licences. I am also not aware of any 3D CAD tool that does not have a very steep learning curve.
Having looked at STEP models of crew threads, I suspect that removing the detailed spiral coil model an replacing it with a cylinder is a lot more complex than an extrude.
I suspect that removing the detailed spiral coil model an replacing it with a cylinder is a lot more complex than an extrude.
No its that easy. What happens is the system deletes parts overlapping another (that’s kind of the idea of a boundary representation model after all) item then just export as step and all that data is gone forever. So dont think modify think replace.
I suspect that removing the detailed spiral coil model an replacing it with a cylinder is a lot more complex than an extrude.
Its not that the curve for using the software is steep, its just that 3d conceptualization is relatively hard for a lot of people.
But having said that you’ve sort of proven my point, if doing a very easy modelling task is beyond your capabilities then doing a more complex shape is surely impossible. However its not like I cant do the shape but then i would have to measure the real deal, id rather measure in my CAD application. Which is the point of having a mechanical model to begin with.
Yes would be nice to have a simplified detail model for bigger assembles. But its relatively straightforward to do this. Its just harder to go towards more information than towards less information.
Another trap there - its common for these manufacturer supplied models to have a licence that forbids modification
I dont think such a license clause would hold up in court in my locale. Or at least it didn’t for the previous company i was working for-
I, too, would prefer B+leads. But then, I don’t know about FEM.
For reference, here’s the issue for simple “extruded shape” support in KiCad: Generate simple 3D models inside KiCad / support extruded outlines and footprint height property (#3453) · Issues · KiCad / KiCad Source Code / kicad · GitLab.
Level A above would definitely be superseded by that if it’s ever implemented, and in any case it’s an entry level shape in any 3D CAD as has been said already and anyone who does anything with any 3D CAD program can do it in one minute after following one short tutorial. I don’t think this is worth doing by part manufacturers.
I also agree about the “con” for level C. I hate models which show even internal details of components. Almost nobody needs to peek into a USB receptacle to see the pins inside it. I have tried to open an Pi CM4 model which none of the hardware available to me could open because it was so detailed, so I couldn’t even try to simplify it.
If anyone reads this far – I also agree with the licensing issue, although it’s not directly on topic. Please be a pioneer in that, release the models under a fitting Creative Commons or some other Open Source compatible license. It just doesn’t make sense to give models with “all rights reserved”. See Libraries License | KiCad EDA, you would really lose nothing with that.
1 Like
Actually, magnetics core models are created from a open-source library, using FreeCAD and Python:
I cannot speak for Würth Elektronik, but as the main developer I can assure you I think the same as you: the models should be free modify if you want, and I will push as much as I can for it. And in fact, these models won’t be manually generated by CAD engineers, they will all be automated and generated on the fly.
Also, regarding the details, maybe it was lost among all the messages, but the reason for the real winding and material description is because their are intended to be use in Finite Element Simulation, so advanced users can model their EM behavior and integrate it in larger simulations.
4 Likes
@AlfVII
Then I think you should offer two models, one for mechanical purposes and one for FEM simulation with a greater LOD. The two worlds don’t share the same needs.
3 Likes
I agree with Maui. I now gave my vote for D because this was originally about FEM, and I don’t see a reason to omit the leads.
There may be even a third use case: beautiful photorealistic rendering. That would benefit from details, but not from internal details.
1 Like
I remembered that it was said something like that but I associate finite element simulation with some analysis of the strength of roof structures…
I got the idea that it may be is also usable to
but was not sure.
In such a case I assume that D version model can be much, much more complicated (bigger file and time consuming in processing) that B+. It is the next argument to have two models.
One B+ model that is the same for all inductors in the serie.
Separate D model for each inductor in serie (previously I assumed that D is also one for serie but only looking better).
So if you spend time on doing all these D models than making extra one B+ is negligible of additional work.
I’d like to repeat once more: If you want to treat KiCad seriously than in my opinion it would be very good to be able to get KiCad footprints for Wurth elements directly from Wurth.
I have said it around year ago to someone from Wurth who visits me from time to time.
What about starting a rotten poll?
I also think that “B with Leads” probably offers the best functional view without unnecessarily inflating the size of the image file. However it is also true that I like a pretty coil as much as anyone. But I don’t personally use 3D modeling for pcb layout.
I am guessing that the write-in candidate wins.
1 Like
I do, and a few times had to get my mechanical engineer to simplify 3D models, so that the KiCad STEP export didn’t cause Solidworks import to crash. I am sure Solidworks had a STEP import size bug.
FEM is a generic method for dividing some object (or 3D space) into very small sections, putting the thing in a (big) matrix and then running a lot of math to calculate interactions with the cells in the matrix. It is “just” a math thing, and it can be used for very varying applications. A few examples:
- Mechanical stress and material deformation. (Both elastic and plastic).
- Thermals (How heat moves though a PCB / Heatsink.
- Modelling of Electric and Magnetic fields
- Flame front propagation inside rocket motors.
Solidworks is the light and cheap entry level version of Dassaults offering. So it is on purpose kneecapped so they can sell Catia. So it has artificial limits that exhibit now and then.
Solidworks does indeed have a limitation on how many parts a document can have. Which means that the new export option to export all copper and vias as individual parts is going to be total killer for Solidworks. But this is indeed a artifical limitation of the software, not that solidworks as a software could not handle scenes this big (because it could before being aquired by dassault).
so does NX… one of the only true open standards for exchanging mechanical solid files is being neglected to push their own file formats (eg x_t). The last Kicad 4-card kicad design that I created STEP’s for to assist in mechanical packaging ended up taking about 1h per file to load… then convert to open “instantly”.
I decided to use step-up to put track information in not just to push how bad NX importer of a STANDARD was, but I needed to perform box-level creepage-clearance from screwheats to 1000V nodes…
1 Like