Mark Everett wrote:
> Last week I got a pile of work dropped on me so I cant do any testing for 3-4
> months. But I think you missed my point.
>
>> Since TinyCAD has excellent support for using product names (aliases)
>> for the symbols, my method is not to have any references in TinyCAD to
>> foot prints. That is done in a separate file.
>
> The best way to handle this is to put the footprint file names in the symbol
> attributes not in a seperate file, IMHO. That way TinyCAD can export in
> PADS-PCB (Mentor) file format that FreePCB (and others) expects. There are
> few standard ways of expressing any thing in the board CAD arena but this is
> about as close as it gets.
>
> Mark
>
> Last week I got a pile of work dropped on me so I cant do any testing
for 3-4 months.
> > But I think you missed my point.
> >
>> >> Since TinyCAD has excellent support for using product names (aliases)
>> >> for the symbols, my method is not to have any references in TinyCAD to
>> >> foot prints. That is done in a separate file.
> >
> > The best way to handle this is to put the footprint file names in
the symbol
> > attributes not in a seperate file, IMHO. That way TinyCAD can export in
> > PADS-PCB (Mentor) file format that FreePCB (and others) expects.
There are few
> > standard ways of expressing any thing in the board CAD arena but
this is about
> > as close as it gets.
> >
> > Mark
I did not miss your point! Even if that way to work is some kind of
"standard", putting the foot print name in the schematics symbol
attributes. That way works quite well if there is one designer doing
both the schematics and the layout. At my site we have 2-3 people doing
the schematics and 1-2 other people doing the layout. Our main layout
designer is located 500 km from the schematics team.
When you put the layout foot print name in the schematics you have to
have an information flow like this (simplified):
Requirements => Schematics <=> layout => mounting docs and files.
When we work we prefer an information flow like this (simplified):
Requirements => Schematics => layout => mounting docs and files.
|
-> Bill of materials -> product management system
The only thing we pass from the schematics to the layout is the product
codes and there poses (like "HMR001/0" and "R100") If the layout
designer does not know what foot print to use for a HMR001/1, he looks
up HMR001/1 in the product management system and founds all the data he
needs to draw the foot print and puts the foot print name in his cross
reference file that matches product names with foot prints.
We use this way of working to minimize human errors and to have very
clear responsibilities. The schematics designer is responsible for
choosing the right components and connecting them to the right "nets".
The layout designer is responsible for making the foot prints and
associating product codes with foot prints. No data of that kind needs
to go backwards in the tool chain (from layout to schematics).
Maybe not a perfect explanation of the way we work, but I hope you get
my point.
Anybody else out there that works this way (or not)?
// Magnus
