← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Improving module editor: Simplify complex package drawing

 

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Øyvind Aabling wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/26/2010 08:29 AM, Michael Heidinger wrote:
Hello,

i am advanced smd user. As SMD Packages are getting quite more
complex is adding these new cases the conventional module editor a
real challenge. Please have a look at a WDFN-8 Package.
Package drawing: http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/NTTFS4821N-D.PDF
If you take a look on page 6, the Drain-Part is a complex poligonal.

My concret wish: A option "poligonal pads" for the module editor,
where I can draw this pads by hand. With this tool complex drawings,
like WDFN-8 cases can be possible. Can you please implement such a
feature in the module editor?

Would be a great help!
Michael
Michael,

I like the idea, and it would work best with scripted generation of
footprints.

On a side note, you can fake these pads by overlapping several pads
with the same pad number. It's the most elegant solution, but it
generally works, and it's quicker than waiting for the feature.

I'm looking at the datasheet right now, and the WDFN doesn't seem too
hard to draw (actually, 6 rectangular pads would complete the drain).
I'll ping Oyvind (he wrote awesome scripts to generate a ton of very
useful footprints) to see if it can be added to his library (it's not
in kicad yet, but I suspect it will make it by the next kicad release).

Part WDFN8-M065 added in rev 8, it's in oaa_smd_qfn.mod,
available at lp:~oyvind-aabling/kicad-newlib/mod :-)

It only took 4 extra lines of dimension tables and 6 new lines of
code, but I've just noticed that I forgot to add the thermal pad
to the 3D view :-( - I'll correct that in the next rev (will require
a few more lines of code, so this part will be way above average ...).

Alex

Øyvind.

Rev. 9: ThermalPad added to WDFN8-M065 3D view, footprint corrected
- the "ears" of the TP were in the wrong place (math error).
I _really_ should've checked it with cvpcb
(as I usually do), but this time I didn't :-(

A colleague sent this link to our chat list a few days
ago, and although slightly off-topic (or maybe not ;-),
members of this list should be qualified to appreciate it:
http://i.imgur.com/0T2S4.jpg :-)

Øyvind.

References