Feature request

News from developer. Also post info about new articles, tutorials, conferences, etc.
Post Reply
Message
Author
KuifjePDX
Posts: 10
Joined: 08 May 2020, 02:27

Feature request

#1 Post by KuifjePDX » 20 May 2020, 08:15

*** Update: I see this post is in the wrong thread. I'll repost in the correct thread. ***

As I was installing the new 4.0 release this morning and added the 3D libraries something finally dawned on me.

The 3D models are linked in the Pattern Editor to the pad layout. I understand it makes sense to link a 3D model to its corresponding foot print.

However, what if you have multiple components that have identical foot prints but different shapes? Surface mounted LED's would be a good example but I'm sure there are many more.

Would it be possible for the development team to explore the idea of providing the ability to link a 3D model in the Component Editor. If the link in the Component Editor is left blank the 3D model associated to the foot print in the Pattern Editor will be used, but if the link in the Component Editor points to a valid 3D model that model will be used in the 3D board view and export.

Thank you.

fi2eewill
Posts: 31
Joined: 09 Sep 2016, 07:10

Re: Feature request

#2 Post by fi2eewill » 04 Jun 2020, 00:15

I am not sure how pushing this on DipTrace would help. What if you have more than two 3D model for a given footprint, this is not something that should be managed in DipTrace. IMHO, it's much easier and logical to create another library part, both symbol and it's footprint where you can assign a different 3D model to serve the purpose.

This would be easily accomplished in a true database part management system. However, DipTrace is not there yet. However, I can see it happen one day :)

User avatar
KevinA
Posts: 639
Joined: 18 Dec 2015, 08:35

Re: Feature request

#3 Post by KevinA » 04 Jun 2020, 00:37

Change the 3D image of the component after placing it on a PCB.
To become RDBMS SQL compliant would require a complete redesign of the existing product or a complete new product.

fi2eewill
Posts: 31
Joined: 09 Sep 2016, 07:10

Re: Feature request

#4 Post by fi2eewill » 04 Jun 2020, 01:57

Hi KevinA,
I am not looking for full RDBM SQL "compliant" and a redesign of DipTrace, rather a streamlined way of managing the parts.
Here is my original post discussing the details viewtopic.php?p=27273#p27273

DipTrace links a component to footprint, so I don't see why this can not be stored and read from external table.

Best,
fi2eewill

KuifjePDX
Posts: 10
Joined: 08 May 2020, 02:27

Re: Feature request

#5 Post by KuifjePDX » 06 Jun 2020, 14:32

1) I think this discussion should be in another thread, but it is my fault for posting here originally. Perhaps the moderator could move this thread and merge it into the Feature Request section.

2) I am precisely talking about more than one component that use the same footprint. Rather than creating new (identical) footprint entries with different 3D models and have each component point to another footprint entry,cI think it would be a more elegant solution to associate the 3D part with the component rather than the footprint, do you only need to maintain one footprint instead of multiple, which reduces the size of the footprint library and prevents discrepancies between footprints that are supposed to be identical but end up not because you forget to make the changes to all footprint entries in the library.

In my opinion, it is logical to associated the 3D model with the part instead of with the footprint. After all, the footprint is just some flat copper pads without much 3D to it. The component on the other hand has lots of 3D features.

Perhaps the 3D information should always be associated in the component library rather than in the footprint library.

I would like to hear from the developers what their opinion is on this matter.

novarm44
DipTrace Lead Developer
Posts: 466
Joined: 08 Jun 2010, 23:24
Contact:

Re: Feature request

#6 Post by novarm44 » 06 Jun 2020, 19:26

KuifjePDX wrote: 06 Jun 2020, 14:32 I would like to hear from the developers what their opinion is on this matter.
We follow this thread, but didn't reply yet.
In our concept pattern/footprint is also associated with package, not only with pads and graphics, that is why 3D model is attached to pattern, not to component, and we probably keep this concept as single pattern-3D model record is usually used for many components + it corresponds to a new concept with IPC patterns and 3D models by component outline. However having additional 3D model file option for the component, which overwrites pattern settings, is probably a way to go.

User avatar
KevinA
Posts: 639
Joined: 18 Dec 2015, 08:35

Re: Feature request

#7 Post by KevinA » 07 Jun 2020, 06:14

I keep trying to find parts where having the ability to assign 3D images to the component would work and I come up with none. STM makes a "few" MCU devices, you can download their 'patterns/footprints/3D images as Ultra Librarian *.bxl then convert to importable format for Diptrace. They have parts that have several 'patterns/footprints' and one 3D image, the different patters are for manufacturing processes. I generally use the 'pattern/footprint' from the manufacture, their 3D image and component if it is by function not pin order but again, I have not found a use case for multiple 3D images on a component, please enlighten me with a use case.

Professor Chaos
Posts: 13
Joined: 20 May 2020, 07:56

Re: Feature request

#8 Post by Professor Chaos » 07 Jun 2020, 07:24

KevinA wrote: 07 Jun 2020, 06:14 I keep trying to find parts where having the ability to assign 3D images to the component would work and I come up with none. STM makes a "few" MCU devices, you can download their 'patterns/footprints/3D images as Ultra Librarian *.bxl then convert to importable format for Diptrace. They have parts that have several 'patterns/footprints' and one 3D image, the different patters are for manufacturing processes. I generally use the 'pattern/footprint' from the manufacture, their 3D image and component if it is by function not pin order but again, I have not found a use case for multiple 3D images on a component, please enlighten me with a use case.
For simple footprints like 2.54mm rows, a variety of male or female connectors, or even something like a voltage regulator module. Likewise for 3.5mm or 5.08mm rows, a variety of terminal blocks. With pattern-associated 3d models one needs multiple duplicate patterns in the user library to have unique 3d models.

Maybe not a concern for professional work, but arises for the hobbyist. Being able to override the pattern-based 3d model with a component-specific 3d model would be a good solution.

fi2eewill
Posts: 31
Joined: 09 Sep 2016, 07:10

Re: Feature request

#9 Post by fi2eewill » 18 Jul 2020, 19:48

Professor Chaos wrote: 07 Jun 2020, 07:24 Being able to override the pattern-based 3d model with a component-specific 3d model would be a good solution.
As KevinA suggested, it's possible to override 3D Model in PCB Layout. However, IMHO, a good library is an integral part of a successful design and reuse. So, back to your example with LEDs...

Let say you already have 0603 Green LED, now you need to add a 0603 Red LED. I would simply "copy" the Green LED footprint, rename the new pattern and associate the 3D model for RED LED. It can't be simpler than that!

LED_0603_G -> Green LED 3D model
LED_0603_R -> Red LED 3D model

You can go all out and have 3D model vendor specific based on the full MFG P/N... For me it suffice to have the 3D model shows correct representation of the part - so I don't care if I use a generic 0603 LED 3D Model or vendor's specific ... If I really need a vendor specific one, say because of different component height, again easier to copy existing pattern and re-assign 3D model...

Yes, I can can override the Green LED 3D model in PCB Layout, but now if I need a Red LED on the same board I have to override again. Also, if I work on a new PCB and I need a RED led, I have to go through the exercise again over and over...

Hobbyist or not, what seemed like a "quick" shortcut becomes a redundant and time consuming task...
It's much easier to copy an existing pattern and associate new 3D model from the onset... My 2 cents


Best,
fi2eewill

Post Reply