Mastodawn

One of the most annoying things in #electronics: you can run a trace under a 0603 resistor, but you can't do that under a 0603 capacitor. The IPC footprints are slightly different, taking the height of the capacitor body into account.

Show thread

Graham Sutherland / Polynomial 1d ago

@niconiconi this is one of the reasons I don't include footprints with my auto-generated Altium & KiCad libraries for JLC's parts.

however, I *am* working on a thing that lets you turn their EasyEDA footprints into Altium/KiCad footprints, to get around this annoyance.

Show thread

niconiconi 1d ago

@gsuberland "to get around this annoyance." But it's incorrect to get around this annoyance, IPC says no because capacitors are not resistors with a different aspect ratio, mixed footprints degrade yield during reflow, perhaps by creating more tombstones. I also don't understand what does JLC have anything to do with it. This is the industry standard.

Show thread

Graham Sutherland / Polynomial 1d ago

@niconiconi no no, I don't mean the standard is annoying!

I have a tool that generates parameterised parts for Altium and KiCad from the JLC parts DB. people often asked why I don't include a footprints library to go with it, and this is one of the reasons - I don't have the height data to generate correct IPC footprints for the parts, so I don't. it's an annoyance in the sense that it'd be nice if I could include footprints.

Show thread

I love this, so I

@gsuberland @niconiconi there’s also the cases where JLC’s footprints are hilariously wrong (yes, it was a TI power-related part with horrific CAD drawings)

EDIT: TPS55288, https://aus.social/@jpm/114180387563569695

I love this, so I (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image It is, however, marginally more correct than JLCPCB's attempt at a footprint for the same part.

Aus.Social