kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Eldar Khayrullin <eldar.khayrullin@xxxxxxx>]

It will be good if it will be selectable as option

В Среда, 15 июн. 2016 в 12:40 , Cirilo Bernardo 
<cirilo.bernardo@xxxxxxxxx> написал:
> Hi Eldar,
>
>  The problem I have is that different standards have different 
> orientations. Even IPC now have "Orientation Level A", which is what 
> is described in 7351B, and another one where Pin 1 is in what the EIA 
> packaging standards call "Quadrant 3" (bottom left). The EIA 
> specification in turn specifies a different orientation for Pin1 
> depending on the SMT package. To make things worse, some 
> manufacturers provide the same part in different orientations on 
> tape. So while I can specify that the given orientations are 
> according to IPC-7351B, to help users determine the orientation 
> without ambiguity, it is good to have the Pin1 location in the 
> position file as well.
>
> - Cirilo
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Eldar Khayrullin 
> <eldar.khayrullin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Look at IPC 7351 - 16 ZERO COMPONENT ORIENTATIONS and Figure 16-1.
> >
> > В Вторник, 14 июн. 2016 в 6:53 , Cirilo Bernardo 
> > <cirilo.bernardo@xxxxxxxxx> написал:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > >  Some assembly houses prefer to have a Pad1 location in addition
> > > to the part centroid location; this makes the orientation of the
> > > component unambiguous and can help in cases where the user's
> > > footprint doesn't align with the tape orientation of a component.
> > > Would this be a useful addition to the placement file or are there
> > > any objections to it?
> > >
> > > - Cirilo