4 ms·

I'm not sure if/how this is improved in KiCad 6 but from the KiCad 5 tutorials I've seen, "manually match symbols to footprints" was its approach to library man

I'm not sure if/how this is improved in KiCad 6 but from the KiCad 5 tutorials I've seen, "manually match symbols to footprints" was its approach to library management :/ I'm learning PCB design with https://github.com/horizon-eda/horizon https://github.com/horizon-eda/horizon instead — and here library (pool) management comes first. You actually place full "parts" (that associate symbols and footprints and other metadata) onto schematics — and if you don't want to decide on a particular model number, you can still place a "base" part (e.g. "generic 5k resistor") and change it later. Oh, and the schematic editor actually edits nets, rather than what KiCad does (seemingly just a basic CAD drawing that gets analyzed into a netlist as a very separate explicit step).

bsder 5y ago
I'm ... not a fan of "library management". 1) I see its value. The cacophony needs to be tamed. And a larger company can dedicate staff to keeping the library up-to-date and organized. But it's kind of like the problems between a monorepo and multiple repositories. I've never been part of a company where we could afford to dedicate people to BOM management and library control. I know a really good person who does this--but the companies she works at move at a sclerotic pace. They're medical or aerospace. They have zillions of ISO certifications and testing requirements. You have to file 3 forms to put a new part in the "system". And this is fine--I want someone like her preventing random changes sneaking into a medical device, thanks. And even still, she has to fight with people every day to hold back the chaos. 2) Everybody has a different notion of "library management" and someone else's version will always be an impediment. "Library management" is, practically by definition, opinionated. Mine is too. I have a very idiosyncratic way of parts numbering my resistors, capacitors, inductors and a few other things in the system. It's optimized for the fact that if you put things in boxes in order sorted by those numbers, I can browse through our inventory very quickly and pull parts, values, and footprints that I need as well as know if I don't have something or have a substitute. All without having to consult some master spreadsheet or database that will always be out of date. It drives the aforementioned library organizer crazy. She wants me to use the "standard" parts numbers and classifications. However, she also acknowledges that I have a solid reason for what I chose. If I ever manage to hire her, I will let her at it and I will comply with what she wants. > "manually match symbols to footprints" was its approach to library management :/ It is, but I also find that "footprint management" at the schematic simply isn't as useful as people make it out to be. "Generic" footprints are fine when you're throwing around DIP chips or 1206 components. However, footprints get a lot less "generic" and interchangeable when you're working with 0402 and smaller components. A lot of my components wind up with "unique" footprints anyway.

bsder 5y ago

I'm ... not a fan of "library management". 1) I see its value. The cacophony needs to be tamed. And a larger company can dedicate staff to keeping the library up-to-date and organized. But it's kind of like the problems between a monorepo and multiple repositories. I've never been part of a company where we could afford to dedicate people to BOM management and library control. I know a really good person who does this--but the companies she works at move at a sclerotic pace. They're medical or aerospace. They have zillions of ISO certifications and testing requirements. You have to file 3 forms to put a new part in the "system". And this is fine--I want someone like her preventing random changes sneaking into a medical device, thanks. And even still, she has to fight with people every day to hold back the chaos. 2) Everybody has a different notion of "library management" and someone else's version will always be an impediment. "Library management" is, practically by definition, opinionated. Mine is too. I have a very idiosyncratic way of parts numbering my resistors, capacitors, inductors and a few other things in the system. It's optimized for the fact that if you put things in boxes in order sorted by those numbers, I can browse through our inventory very quickly and pull parts, values, and footprints that I need as well as know if I don't have something or have a substitute. All without having to consult some master spreadsheet or database that will always be out of date. It drives the aforementioned library organizer crazy. She wants me to use the "standard" parts numbers and classifications. However, she also acknowledges that I have a solid reason for what I chose. If I ever manage to hire her, I will let her at it and I will comply with what she wants. > "manually match symbols to footprints" was its approach to library management :/ It is, but I also find that "footprint management" at the schematic simply isn't as useful as people make it out to be. "Generic" footprints are fine when you're throwing around DIP chips or 1206 components. However, footprints get a lot less "generic" and interchangeable when you're working with 0402 and smaller components. A lot of my components wind up with "unique" footprints anyway.