Re: gEDA-user: improved footprint for MSOP10

[Stefan Salewski <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 13:01 +0200, Armin Faltl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> since the library version footprint MSOP10.fp seems to be
> very unprecise, I made my own, which is included below.
> The major difference is in the spacing of pads.
> 
> Regards, Armin
> 

>very unprecise, 

Please try to give more detailed error reports -- if that one is really
wrong, we should remove it.

To yours:

Do you really think that it is a good idea to have the text overlapping
the pads by default position?

The silk is close to the pads on the left and right side, at least
distance is not symmetric on all four sides.

Please note, it is a good idea to specify source of layout data and
license for distribution. PCB footprints can have attributes for that.

Hexadecimal flags may be OK, but textual ones seems to be preferred in
these days.

Is is really useful to have these thin soldermask areas between pads, or
should we prefer a gang solder mask? This is a question, I am not sure,
but I think there is no real advantage for these stripes, but
manufactures can have problems with it -- ok I think they remove it
anyway.



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user