Why are 3D Models Assigned to Patterns Instead Of Components?

Making your own components and patterns, organizing and using libraries.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
synthRodriguez
Posts: 3
Joined: 27 Jun 2020, 04:53

Why are 3D Models Assigned to Patterns Instead Of Components?

#1 Post by synthRodriguez » 03 Jul 2020, 08:02

New user, have the Full package for a couple of weeks now. Never used any other PCB design software. It's going great overall.

I don't understand the logic behind assigning 3D models at the Pattern level. It seems they should be assigned at the Component level. Same goes for the ability to call out a Manufacturer and Datasheet link in Pattern Properties.

To me a pattern is a generic entity, say a 14-pin or 16-pin DIP, or a simple spaced pair of pads for a resistor or capacitor.

What is the thinking behind adding a 3D model to such an entity? If I assign say a 16-pin resistor network 3D image to a pattern and want to use it for an open DIP socket, I now have to make two different patterns using, THE SAME PATTERN. Then I need a CD4016 switch, yet another Pattern with the same pattern footprint. I don't get it.

Would it not be simpler to have the pattern files non-specific to a component name or type and assign the 3D model at the Component level? Can someone explain the benefit of the current paradigm please?

User avatar
KevinA
Posts: 564
Joined: 18 Dec 2015, 15:35

Re: Why are 3D Models Assigned to Patterns Instead Of Components?

#2 Post by KevinA » 03 Jul 2020, 17:27

A component is a logical representation of a device, it has properties that allow building a schematic and generating a netlist but one property a component doesn't have is pin physical position and that is needed to mate to a 3D model. You can (must) assign a pattern to a component but since the pattern is what is used to 'mate' with the 3D image the mating happens during the pattern creation.

Post Reply