I have tried to create some common footprints in PCB, partly just to learn how this thing works. Since I have some experience with Eagle, I liked the footprints in their library.
So I saw the footprints for common components in PCB and didn't like their barebones shapes, and decided to create some of my own. I kept the following in mind: 1. Some portions of the PCB library have values associated with footprints, e.g. "1M" resistors and "100K" resistors, etc. I thought this was unnecessary. Or maybe I'm missing some vital point... you can tell me about it. 2. Eagle footprints are drawn using 6mil lines. I thought this was too thin, so I drew them using 8mil lines. (My PCB fab chap seems to generate really ultra-thin lines on the silkscreen with 6mil. YMMV.) Existing footprints with PCB seem to be drawn with all sorts of line thicknesses, including 10mil and 20mil, which I found too thick in some cases. 3. I tried to make the parts look like "pictures", not "diagrams" or symbols. Being a novice circuit designer, I find this important. To me, accurate pictorial representation of a component on the silkscreen is akin to mnemonic variable names in code. The software works just as well with poorly chosen variable names, but it's easier to read and understand when the names are intelligently chosen. 4. I did not understand the rationale for the drill dias of the pads in some of the parts in the PCB database. I have tried to select the drill dia carefully here, based on my limited knowledge of the lead diameters. 5. In my hobby electronics experience, I find that the annular copper ring around a drill hole for a pad needs to be at least 10 mil in width, preferably 15mil, for easy soldering and de- soldering. I've tried to retain this in the pins I've done with my footprints. YMMV. But with this brilliant decision of PCB to keep all file formats as ASCII, it'll be easy for someone to write a script to patch the pin annular widths as per your preferences if you wish. (I would love to have a script which can do with a PCB layout what Eagle does in its DRC: set a min width and max width for annular rings, with a percentage of drill dia as the guiding rule for in-betweens.) 6. I did not like the transistor footprints for TO220, TO126, etc, which I found with PCB. Some of them did not give me any visual indication of which side was the "front" of the device. So I drew the shapes accordingly in my footprints, to give a clear visual indicator. 7. I found square pins for Pin 1 of a lot of non-polar passive components in the PCB library. I found this unnecessary and adding to visual clutter. So I just decided to design my footprints with both pins round for such devices. 8. I wanted elongated pins/pads for some of the higher-current devices. So I incorporated them. I don't know whether it'll work in reality when I include the device in PCB. I haven't yet generated Gerbers and checked. 9. I created separate sets of footprints for each resistor form factor. In the existing PCB library, when you move from a 200mil leg spacing to a 300mil spacing, the device also becomes wider. This is misleading, and you can't use the silk outline effectively to place devices tightly when you are short of space. You need accurate body shapes and sizes in the silk outline, IMHO. I tried to do this. I don't know whether these definitions will work. If any of you can give me feedback, I'll correct my mistakes and put them back up again. I need these things to be flawless, for my own sake. Check: http://www.dhandanought.org/tcpip/audio/EXP/geda-footprints/ Thanks for the help Tarun _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user