The over complication of SMD footprints is a big issue for me, having been promoting sensible footprint practice for years (35), its also a pain when an engineer gets hold of the tool and starts ripping to bits a free basic library of compliant footprints because there are a few microns difference between the actual footprint and what the TOOL tells you. This conversation from Feb this year, there is more but I cannot publish it for various reasons.
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. I agree with you that he cannot be allowed to push his view of things and say it’s following an IPC Standard. I have spoken to them in the past and explained this is unacceptable, but obviously I’m not getting my point across. I have asked my VP to talk to PCB Libraries. I do think this is rather worrying and a bit of a backdoor way for someone to force their desires on the IPC. Please explain why the downloadable tool for the IPC-7351 footprints is set to IPC-7351C format when this has not been ratified… So Altium is correc t PCB libraries is in-correct.Īs illustrated in the following emails (addresses removed): IPC-7351 C has not been ratified, B is the current standard, I have spoken to the IPC about this in strong terms and they should have slapped PCB Libraries wrist, they should not be doing what they are doing.
0 kommentar(er)
