Are any of you aware if packages with a non-isolated mounting tab
connected to any other pad than the middle one exist?
If they don't, then I would opt for one footprint with the tab
connected and one footprint with the tab unconnected.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Carl Poirier
<carl.poirier.2@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:carl.poirier.2@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The question of pin names had been solved a while ago already. It
was agreed that the symbols would take care of pin swaps.
As for the tab, I wished to avoid the board-level edit of the
footprint, but it's a good compromise to avoid many library variants.
Michal Salaban (See other email) suggests another solution, which
consists of attributing pin number 4 to the tab in the schematic
symbol, and pad number four to the tab in the footprint. Here, the
user alse has to manually assign a net to the pad, but in the
schematic. Any comments on that one?
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Vesa Solonen
<vesa.solonen@xxxxxxxx <mailto:vesa.solonen@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:
31/12/14, 04:01, Carl Poirier kirjoitti:
> Vesa,
>
> If I understand correctly, you say the oyvind-aabling
library is a good
> example of having multiple variants of the same housing,
which you don't
> like. Right?
Hi Carl,
Quite the opposite, if I understand correctly ;)
With multiple variants depending on a device I meant e.g.
TO-220_GDS and
TO-220_BCE, which I don't like. I see why pin names are nice
on the PCB,
but they don't belong to the standardised housing library.
They should
be pulled from the schematic symbol the standard housing is
linked to.
This should be quite easy to add in to the pcbnew pin rendering,
possibly with an option to turn it on part by part basis.
In the oyvind-aabling's library variants are only mechanical
variants,
vertical, horizontal with tab to PCB and horizontal with tab
away from
PCB. Everything parametrically generated including 3-D and
not_too_long_names.
-Vesa
