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-