On 03:53 PM 16/03/2004, Brian Guralnick said:
Thank god, that, since my first PCB with protel's PCB & Schematic back in
96/97, I never since used a single Protel footprint.  Ever.


To be fair this isn't really a Protel issue. This is more an IPC issue. The Protel libraries are based on the only thing around that is vaguely a standard, that is the IPC standard - I am not sure what else they could use.


My beef is that the only thing around that is a standard is just way off the mark for modern miniaturisation. I don't understand why it has persisted so long. The Philips and other passive footprints have been around for many many years - virtually unchanged. Where are they getting their data? Why isn't IPC releasing reflow optimised land patterns that maximise packing density taking into account the improvement in machine placement accuracy? Only then would we start getting libraries from the CAE suppliers that were usable in modern dense designs.

I too make my own footprints but this is not for everyone and I wish I didn't have to.

Ian



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to