Having worked in PCB design for a few years I found the cleanest method is to duplicate the components that need pads options in the schematic too, and then choose the different padstacks for the different options on the distinct part references!
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:22 AM, marc olanié <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > >If you look at the Kicad libs, you will find a similar system, there are > *[>] *>DIP-8__300, and DPI-8__300_ELL, which are the same outline but with > *[>] *>different pad settings. > > *[>] * > > *Tnks andy for this precise answer. * > > *But it doesn’t solve my problem, as I absolutely need a pad design able > to accept both “thru hole” and CMS components (and not 2 separated and > different modules). The real problem is that I cannot predict which > component will be used in the future, depending on the market price, the > availability and so on.. I need to keep all options as open as possible.* > > *Anyway, you’re right, the question of the soldermask remains..* > > *… or shoud I “stack” 2 different modules à the same place to avoid this > kind of problem ? and if this is the answer, how could I “call” an external > module after my placement ?* > > * * > > *Mark* > > > > > > > > -- Tobias Gogolin Tel. Movistar (646) 124 32 82 Tel. Telcel (646) 160 58 99 skype: moontogo messenger: [email protected] You develop Sustainable Ranch Technology at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SURA-TECH an Open Source Electric Motor/Alternator at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Performance_Axial_Flux and an Open Source Motor Controller at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GoBox
