Many components, specially connectors, have several pads for each pin. It is currently impossible in upverter to define that several pads are connected to the same pin. A workaround is creating a schematic with as many “pins” as there are pads, and then connecting them together, but this often makes a mess.
I have also run into this, in cases where connections are made inside a component or module (using the connection inside a tactile switch as a jumper for example), you end up with leftover rats
Hey guys, you’re right, we currently have a 1-to-1 mapping between pins and pads. So as Gavrilo noted, you need to create a pin for each pad. So if a part has 3 GND pads, you have to create 3 GND pins on the schematic symbol.
Personally I’ve always preferred this approach because it’s less error-prone (ie. it makes it hard for you to accidentally leave out a pad on the footprint and also hard to leave out a pin on the symbol). It’s also more clear to readers of the design.
I think we’re comparing having to make more pins on the schematic symbol + less chance for error + more clarity/specificity on the schematic vs. having more stuff on the schematic (which is potentially messy). What do you guys think?
@Triode, I’m wondering how you ended up with left over ratsnest lines?
Thanks for bringing up this request, I’m glad we’re talking about it!
Anandh
1 Like
@anandh, lets say you have a module with 3 ground pins that are connected together inside the module. You can use 2 of those pins to connect together 2 separate ground pours (connection made inside the module) but the tool will indicate that the 2 pours are not connected.
@Triode, thanks – can you give me more specifics about the last time you encountered this? I want to better understand the scenario where you specifically wanted to connect 2 GND pours together through the module, rather than elsewhere. Did you have split analog/digital ground pours or something? It would also help if there’s a module and/or design on Upverter you could link to here!
@anandh, the simplest example is a jumper wire or 0 ohm resistor. You have a 2 pin device with the same net on both pins, with the connection made within the part itself. This project illustrates: https://upverter.com/eda/#tool=pcb,designId=bbb78170b21c0572
1 Like
In the above project, how could I make the R1 component such that the rat went away?
@Triode, thanks for the example, I see what you mean.
In this case you’ll have to click the Ignore button on the related Design Rule violation. This will cause the rats nest line to disappear.
But I’m wondering if you can give me a design example of when you encountered this scenario? When did you have two net segments, of the same name, whose connection you wanted to control with a jumper? In this case it seems it’d be more clear in the schematic to give the two segments different names.
Thanks for the explanations so far!
Anandh
I fully agree with @Triode there. Take this project for instance:
https://upverter.com/gavrilo.bozovic/2d583c25654e9cd8/VEL004-back/
It is a small PCB used to handle connections to and from a PCB for a system that can be daisy-chained. There are 2 jack connectors and 2 card-edge connectors. The card-edge connectors have each time two pads per line, however this is for mechanical stability purposes; there is no particular need to connect both pads each time. Therefore there will be design rule violations (either unconnected copper or under-connected net depending on how the component was designed). It is always possible to ignore them but having to ignore multiple design rule violations repeatedly is a very slippery slope that may lead to some real issues being overlooked.
1 Like