Steve,

The picture looks like pads are not the same width.  could this be? I
would be more worried about that
then the actual shape.   No way would I allow different width pads.
Looks like the package is either a tsop (.5mm pitch)
or ssop .63mm pitch)  You would also want the same amount of solder
paste to be placed on pads. I guess the actual
shape of pads if they are the same size shouldn't matter.  But as a Cad
Designer I would never allow octagon and rectangle
pads on the same part let alone on the same board. You use one or the
other.  Could make inspection and rework a little
harder then it needs to be.

I don't know Orcad PCB either but a library part is no excuse.  you
create a new one, call it the same name or call it something
else and change the netlist,  not a big deal in any layout tool I have
used before.  Some thing isn't right in here.

let us know if you ever here the real reason for not fixing a library
package.  If it was a real layout tool, then you could change
padstack definition on a given package and make them all uniform with
out messing with the library package.

good luck,
Greg Scott
Cray Inc.
Seattle, Wa.

> 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-