kicad-lib-committers team mailing list archive

[John Beard <john.j.beard@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/06/14 20:20, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 07:51:18PM +0100, John Beard wrote:
>> My only concern is that doesn't really look like the component,
>> especially when it comes to the pin-1 feature, which is more easily
>> visually registered by the pin exit side rather than the microscopic "1"
>> moulded into the case. Would that make it harder to interpret the
>> assembly drawing?
> 
> Well, the 'modern' intended purpose for the assembly drawing would be to
> only cross-check the placement files, so it's not important. And anyway
> it's a standard (not even standard, in fact) which doesn't affect the
> manufactured board and has no technological issue behind to solve (like
> registration for silk or other problems).

But it does have some use for documentation and assembly assistance. If
all footprints had assembly, it would be the one I'd print and have in
front of me when hand-assembling the board.

> In short I think that you could put what you want in the assembly if
> it's still clear identity, orientation and position of the component.
> It's not meant for machine processing anyway.

OK, I think I'll go with a slightly more descriptive assembly drawing,
but stop short of a full "fancy" style, as that is a lot more work, even
if it does look cool!

> In short for assembly a standard is better than no standard, but it's
> really not important. Before adding the assembly layer I always
> submitted the full silk (without pad trimming) without any problem in
> manufacturing.

OK, I won't worry too much about it and get one with making more
footprints! Are there any more things you'd like to see changed? No
matter how tiny!

John