Toe, Heel and Side size in PCB library expert and Altium Designer

[jtronix]

When i was creating a footprint i found that footprint create from PCB library expert and Altium IPC Complaint Footprint Wizard does not match. if both follows the same standard then it should give the same result.

After that i have investigate the issue and i found that in Altium designer Toe, Heel and Side comes different than PCB library expert.

I have shared the complete list of Toe, Heel and Side size with different densities.

Can any one please confirm that the size mention in the pdf file is correct or not?

PDF Link: https://www.pcblibraries.com/Produc...oad/Library Expert Surface Mount Families.pdf

 

[marce]

IPC-7351 is a guide, jeez the damn thing has different footprints for 1005 caps etc. that have different heights. It is becoming a bit bloated and the tools such as from PCB libraries do not help. I have raised concerns that someone who influences the IPC-7351 format has a vested financial interest in it being complex so more people use his tool....
It should be simplified.

 

[cyberrat]

As Marce says, it's only a guide.
PCBLibraries tend to work more on their tool, it is also using IPC-7351 rev C while Altium is probably still using rev B, Altium likely do not keep up with changes in their tool, PCBLibraries update theirs as issues are reported in order to keep it at it's best.

Marce is right about simplifying it, if I have an 0603 capacitor footprint then I'd only want 1 footprint, not several depending on the height as that then prevents me from changing a tall one to a low one on a finished board - if they both had the same footprint (that works for both) then it's no problem.

And who needs 1/2 dozen SOT23 footprints? lol

 

[marce]

IPC-7351 C has not been ratified, B is the current standard, I have spoken to the IPC about this in strong terms and they should have slapped PCB Libraries wrist, they should not be doing what they are doing... So Altium is correc t PCB libraries is in-correct.
As illustrated in the following emails (addresses removed):

Hi Nancy,
Please explain why the downloadable tool for the IPC-7351 footprints is set to IPC-7351C format when this has not been ratified…
I do think this is rather worrying and a bit of a backdoor way for someone to force their desires on the IPC.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Regards
Marc England

Mark,

I have asked my VP to talk to PCB Libraries. I have spoken to them in the past and explained this is unacceptable, but obviously I’m not getting my point across. I agree with you that he cannot be allowed to push his view of things and say it’s following an IPC Standard. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.


Nancy

This conversation from Feb this year, there is more but I cannot publish it for various reasons.
The over complication of SMD footprints is a big issue for me, having been promoting sensible footprint practice for years (35), its also a pain when an engineer gets hold of the tool and starts ripping to bits a free basic library of compliant footprints because there are a few microns difference between the actual footprint and what the TOOL tells you. I also had a rather silly time when an Engineer wanted a IPC-73651C library, I told him I could not do one because there is no such thing, because of this tool he said he wanted one, so I told him to get me the specification to work with, if not it would have to be B. So we are having hassle because someone wants to influence matters outside of the IPC for their own gain, not helping the designers like they should be doing.