How to flip a component on pcb and stay on same side

So what you are saying is you have a custom radial part with the silk screen drawn such that is shows the body of the part as it would be with the leads formed to 90 degrees so you can lie it down? I.e. so simple rotation isn't going to work?

If this is the case I think you need to create an alternative package with your pins the opposite way round so you can then add this to the part as a variant and select it in the board by right clicking and selecting "Package" from the menu. Then you choose your alternative package from the list.

Best Regards,

Rachael

Am 04.09.2016 um 12:32 schrieb rachaelp:

So what you are saying is you have a custom radial part with the silk screen drawn such that is shows the body of the part as it would be with the leads formed to 90 degrees so you can lie it down? I.e. so simple rotation isn't going to work?

 

If this is the case I think you need to create an alternative package with your pins the opposite way round so you can then add this to the part as a variant and select it in the board by right clicking and selecting "Package" from the menu. Then you choose your alternative package from the list.

 

Best Regards,

 

Rachael

 

--

To view any images and attachments in this post, visit:

https://www.element14.com/community/message/205093

 

As far as I understand what you want is to ROTATE a device (turn it but

stay on the same side).

Use the MOVE command, grab the device and then right click it with  the

mouse. Every (right) click rotates it by 90 degrees. If you want a

different angle use the rotate command. Help rotate.

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

Joern Paschedag

Nope. If you rotate the radial capacitor laying down, the leads will switch, but it would be laying down in the opposite direction, which is not what I want.

FWIW, adding a variant did not seem to work. Whatever edit I do reflects on the other variants of the same package, which is weird. So I just ended up adding a new package.

On 04/09/16 19:06, Joern Paschedag wrote:

 

As far as I understand what you want is to ROTATE a device (turn it but

stay on the same side).

No, not quite. He wants to reflect it but not mirror to bottom layer. As

Rachael has said, it's a valid requirement for his specific instance but

it best done with a package variant.

Jerry Sy wrote:

 

FWIW, adding a variant did not seem to work. Whatever edit I do reflects on the other variants of the same package, which is weird. So I just ended up adding a new package.

The package variant should work. If you pop your custom .lbr file up here I'll take a quick look at it for you.

Best Regards,

Rachael

Jerry Sy wrote:

 

FWIW, adding a variant did not seem to work. Whatever edit I do reflects on the other variants of the same package, which is weird. So I just ended up adding a new package.

The package variant should work. If you pop your custom .lbr file up here I'll take a quick look at it for you.

Best Regards,

Rachael

rachaelp wrote:

 

Jerry Sy wrote:

 

FWIW, adding a variant did not seem to work. Whatever edit I do reflects on the other variants of the same package, which is weird. So I just ended up adding a new package.

The package variant should work. If you pop your custom .lbr file up here I'll take a quick look at it for you.

 

Best Regards,

Rachael

I think I have just worked out what you meant.... Did you use the variant command to create a new board variant and then edit the package? That would do what you describe and isn't what I meant by variant. I think you may have done it right in the end as you said you added a new package. I assume you mean to the same device such that if you right click on the part in the board you can select "Package" from the context menu and choose between your two package variants? If so all is good and you've done it right :-)

Best Regards,

Rachael

so I copied a device to my library.

The device contains several packages.

The package I selected contains 2 variants, for which I really could not see any difference.

So I went ahead and edited the second variant for the package, and after I saved, whatever changes I made also appeared on the first variant!!

What gives? It seems to defeat the whole point of variant of the same package if you create 10 variants and they do exactly the same thing.

So yes,, I ended up creating a new package and then add it to the device.

Also one issue I ran into, after auto routing, it says there is one 1 airwire. But I cannot find it. I literally examined the whole board almost down to the pixel and cannot find it. I also tried the trick to do manual routing and clicking outside the board, and all I got is a beep sound. I ended up just autorouting and after it completed, the airwire is gone. Must be a bug.

On 04/09/16 23:53, Jerry Sy wrote:

The package I selected contains 2 variants, for which I really could not see any difference.

So I went ahead and edited the second variant for the package, and after I saved, whatever changes I made also appeared on the first variant!!

What gives? It seems to defeat the whole point of variant of the same package if you create 10 variants and they do exactly the same thing.

 

I think you've fallen foul of a terminological misunderstanding...

In the library editor, the term "variant" refers to a pairing of a

symbol with a package. Symbols may be associated with a number of

different packages - for example, a polarized capacitor with ten sizes

of both radial and axial package - and each of these pairings is a

"variant" of the device. In fact, it's possible to pair the symbol with

the same package more than once, using different pin-outs, and each of

those is a "variant" of the device.

So when you edited "the second variant for the package" you were

actually editing the single package associated with both variants for

the device, hence the result you got. They are not different variants of

the package, they are different variants of the device that both point

to the same package.

I hope that makes it clear?

It is not intuitive.

Device A

Package A variant ""

Package B variant B1

Package B variant B2

Package B variant B3

If you edit B3, the same change appears in B1 and B2. What's the point?

I ended up creating Package C.

If you think about it, it is the exact same part, just positioned differently, so it really is not a different package.

I think Rob has explained where things got a bit confused quite well so I wont rehash his explanation. In your situation creating package C was the correct things to do. It's still a variant within the device, but it's a variant with a different package.

In the case above where you have package B pointing to variants B1, B2, B3, a use case for this could be if you have say a standard symbol for an NPN transistor and a SOT-23 package and you create a generic NPN component using these, then there are several combinations of pinouts possible for connecting B,C and E of the symbol to pins 1, 2 and 3 of the package. You use the variants to change the mapping of the symbol pins to the package pads. So in the terminology you gave above:

Device NPN

Package SOT-23 variant CBE // Maps pin 1 -> C, 2 -> B, 3 -> E

Package SOT-23 variant BCE // Maps pin 2 -> B, 2 -> C, 3 -> E

etc....

Note, this is not how I do transistors in my libraries but this is an example of how you could use the package variants in a useful way how you were trying to do.

Best Regards,

Rachael

Jerry Sy wrote on Mon, 05 September 2016 03:22

Device A

Package A variant ""

Package B variant B1

Package B variant B2

Package B variant B3

 

If you edit B3, the same change appears in B1 and B2.

No.  You edited B, not B3, so of course variants B1-B3 changed.  Stop and

actually  think how device definitions work before flailing around or

delcaring it stupid.

Each device in a library is a set of bindings between a symbol (what goes

in the schematic) and a package (what goes on the board).  The binding

includes information like what pins of the symbol represent what physical

pads of the package.  Each such binding is called a "variant".  This refers

to a variant of the device, not any package or symbol.  The various

bindings within a device need to be uniquely labeled somehow.  That somehow

is the variant name.

Devices can currently only refer to a single symbol, but each variant can

reference any suitable package in that library.  Note that devices

reference symbols and packages.  The symbol and package definitions exist

separately in that library.  If you edit a symbol or package, all device

variants within all devices in that library referencing that symbol or

package will change.

If you want two different packages, you have to make two different

packages.  Then you can point two (or more) variants to those packages to

use them.  This is what you want.  A package defines physical layout.  You

want two layouts that are different from each other, so you have to make

two packages.  Once you do that, you edit the device that references the

original package and add a variant to reference the new package.  When you

go to add the device to the schematic, you have to chose between all the

variants in the package to decide which one you want to use this time.

Think about it.  This works the way you want it to work and pretty much the

way it has to work.  Bindings are references and don't contain copies of

what they are binding in their own private hidey-hole somewhere.  You

wouldn't want them too.  That would make fixing or enhancing a package a

mess because you'd have to track down all the bindings that use the package

and fix all the separate copies.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Rachael and Olin have both answered this in their own, respective,

inimitable ways However...

On 05/09/16 08:22, Jerry Sy wrote:

It is not intuitive.

Not to you but it seems quite natural to some others.

 

Device A

Package A variant ""

Package B variant B1

Package B variant B2

Package B variant B3

 

The way you've written this table clearly illustrates the incorrect

mindset that makes it seem "not intuitive" to you. As I tried to explain

before, the correct way to write this is:

Device A

   Variant ""   -> Package A

   Variant B1   -> Package B

etc.

The point is, Variant is a parameter of the DEVICE and NOT of the

PACKAGE. Get that fact understood and all of the supposed weirdness just

floats away.

Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand. and the confusion stems from the interchangeable usage of package and variant.

When one looks at the UI, you see one column called package and a second column called variant.

When you say add a new variant, the obvious intuitive action is to add a variant to the package.

It will be less confusing to just say add a new package to the device, then one will right click to add a new package.

since a package is automatically associated with a variant, I suppose that is where the parlance of add a variant originated from. But since the way the UI is presented distinguishes package and variant, one would add a variant to the package rather than add a new package (with the associated new variant) to the device.

I hope thread clears up any confusion in the future for anyone searching to find answers and lands on this thread.

not to me and a lot of others.

The fact that if you do a search you will find numerous results discussing this same thing is proof positive this is not intuitive.

I think you need to look outside your little bubble. lol.

Am 05.09.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Jerry Sy:

not to me and a lot of others.

OK Buster. It is Ok if you speak for  yourself but imho you do not speak

not for others.

Those "others" may speak for themselves if they want to.

And last but not least you don't speak for me. Get that behind your ears.

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

Joern Paschedag