hi,
the
designer is adding an index which helps test, integration, and rework
personel count pins (for example, 'add a jumper between u2-187 and
u18-41). i'm assuming that these ic's have relatively high lead
counts. it's my experience that these features can be extremely
helpful.
phil
Hi all,
We're having a board lay-out done outside, and as with new designs, I
will get asked to look at the preliminary gerbers to see if I can see anything
out of place that might need changing.
I looked the the gerbers that
were given to me and the first think I noticed was that on some IC footprints,
there was 1 rectangular pad, then 9 pads where the corners were rounded, then
a rectangular pad, and on and on...
So I fed that back to our engineer
here who is over this project, then he fed that back to the individual who is
doing the lay-out. Our engineer here then came back to me and asked if that
would be a problem, and I told him it could be, but why not make all the pads
uniform? Go to: http://www.stevezeva.homestead.com and look at "OrCad" to see
what I mean.
His reply was that the individual doing the layout told
him he would have to go in and manually edit each one of the pads that were
rectangular, and that it would be too much trouble. He said this is the way
OrCad put the footprint down, and if it was such a problem, why would OrCad
have this footprint in the library? Then he added that the IPC-SM-782 says
that you can either use rectangular pads or optionally round the corners, so
that tells him you can use either one or both, and it doesn't make any
difference. So he told the layout person to leave things as they are.
I don't know anything at all about OrCad, but something tells me
there's an operator problem here. I've never seen a footprint like this
before, and no matter what I say, I can't convince our engineer here that the
footprint needs to be fixed.
HELP!!! PLEASE!!!
Thanks,
-Steve Gregory-