I have the schematic of the block on file as well, so everything is picked up. I do have to watch out for component numbers. Other times I've deleted the components on my circuit block and then positioned the components on the design board over them, as I said it's a bit messy, but it does save laying out the tracks again.
You can put pads as close together as you want. It's up to you the deal with the clearance issues. Change them to suite your needs. Do note that if you send boards to a PCB house to be made for you, then they will have all sorts of limits regarding clearance that you will have to follow. Andy On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:09:59 +0100 "Jean-Paul Gendner" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok. > > I suppose that using small circuit blocks is fine to built boards without > having an electrical schematic, because I do not see how you may use board > blocks with a net list? > > I suppose to that this way do not allow pads to be very close together. > > > > Thank you, > > Jean-Paul > > > > **************** > > Jean-Paul Gendner > > 03.88.27.03.44 > > _____ > > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la > part de Andy Eskelson > Envoyé : mardi 26 janvier 2010 14:41 > À : [email protected] > Objet : Re: [kicad-users] Problem description > > > > Yes I mentioned the same thing a few messages up the thread. > Either that or a system that allowed circuit blocks to be created. > > Currently I have a couple of small circuit blocks that I keep on a > separate board layout, and when I want to use them I import that board > into the board I am working on, and then block copy the part of the > circuit I want. This works but can get a bit messy. > > Andy > > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:14:00 +0100 > "Jean-Paul Gendner" <jean-paul.gendner@ > <mailto:jean-paul.gendner%40orange.fr> orange.fr> wrote: > > > “What would be easier would be the ability to draw custom pad shapes with > > multiple drill points. That way there would only be one pad number to > > worry about.” > > > > > > > > The dream for me is to have the possibility with the module > > editor to add tracks (as in the board editor) AND dummy pads. I mean pads > > which are treated as tracks not as “numbered” pads. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jean-Paul > > > > > > > > **************** > > > > Jean-Paul Gendner > > > > 03.88.27.03.44 > > > > _____ > > > > De : kicad-users@ <mailto:kicad-users%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > [mailto:kicad-users@ <mailto:kicad-users%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] > De la > > part de Andy Eskelson > > Envoyé : lundi 25 janvier 2010 16:37 > > À : kicad-users@ <mailto:kicad-users%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > > Objet : Re: [kicad-users] Problem description > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People working with components from the scrap are fairly used to mount > the > > components they have, and not they want. :-) > > > To hell what shape a Capacitor has. He has to match capacitance, > voltage, > > ESR......so its nice to have layouts which would accept more > than one > > shape of component. > > > > I agree, my junk box is the same as everyone elses :-) However Kicad was > > not designed as that sort of program. So we have to workaround things as > > best we can. There is a lot of development going on with Kicad, so lots > > of improvements are being worked on. The next beta release looks like it > > will be fairly soon, but if not you can play wit the nightly builds if you > > want to. As kicad develops I would expect that there will be some easier > > methods to add multiple pads developed. > > > > There was some discussion several months ago regarding some components > > that have more than one power pin, This was a solution to some noise > > issues I think by the component manaf. however two power pins caused > > quite a but of confusion. So at least that sort of problem has been > > flagged up. I don't know if there is any solution to this so far as I've > > not been taking the nightly builds. If anything has been done then that > > might help. > > > > > Of course. This would eliminate some other similar Problems ocouring > with > > components which have more than one pad per connection. Worst i actual > have > > is a screw terminal with ten pads in two rows, all the same > > connection.......:-) > > > > That should not be an issue really, give each terminal pad it's own number > > and also create a connector part with a matching number system, then > > connections you make on the circuit diagram will be reflected onto the > > module, including any multiple connections. > > > > I have some terminal blocks that already have one side parallel > > connected, with the other side for wires. i.e. it forms a bus-bar type > > connection. Each pad is numbered differently and on the circuit I just > > make sure I parallel connect all the pins, that keeps everything happy. > > > > > An other point would be a TO-92 footprint wich allows stright and molded > > Types. I saw it so often, but seldom you get a layout program, which > allows > > this...... > > > > That's more difficult - you can end up with clearance issues and it can > > make track routing a bit awkward. > > > > I tried that some time ago and in the end I decided it was easier to > > simply have two footprints. :-) > > > > > > > I am thinking, more than one pad per connection would create an logical > > problem for DRC. Perhaps there would be a way to let the DRC recognizing a > > (well declarated) group of pads as one pad? > > > > What would be easier would be the ability to draw custom pad shapes with > > multiple drill points. That way there would only be one pad number to > > worry about. > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > >
