3 ms·
There's a lot of good reasons why its not universal. Chief amongst them is that there's no guarantee that a given footprint will work in the context of the over
by petsfed 3y ago
There's a lot of good reasons why its not universal. Chief amongst them is that there's no guarantee that a given footprint will work in the context of the overall assembly. Will you get tomb-stoning? Will the combination of fab capabilities and assembly capabilities necessitate a larger aperture for a given pad? If so, will that cause the solder to migrate during reflow to an adjoining pad?
Is it Yageo's responsibility to publish a different 0402 footprint for each board house's capabilities?
- stonegray 3y agoBy this logic, EDA software shouldn’t include any footprints at all Capabilities, while not identical, are similar. I use the same 0402 footprint regardless of the board house.
- RF_Savage 3y agoAnd it is why many professional one's don't. Altium has multiple footprint creation wizards for making footprints, but they are made to your specifications, so that they fot your assembly requirements.
- rcxdude 3y agoTBH, you should treat them as if they don't ("size of part library shouldn't be part of the evaluation, let alone top of the list of "standard questions"). And generally external libraries are suboptimal as well, for various reasons. What I want is tools for quickly importing and generating footprints, like Altium's generator (and support for mechanical dimension constraints like mechanical CAD has had forever would really help. It boggles my mind that no PCB tool has them, it would be such a killer feature)