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-