added several (many!!!) missing devices

[jkriege2]

Dear all, I added all devices that I could think of and that were still missing in KiCAD + I reworked some of the existing devices:

What do you think? Is anything missing? Do you like the style? Shoot at it ;-)

Best & have a nice weekend,
JAN

[jkriege2]

@Schlumpf @SchrodingersGat @pointhi @diggit :
I just looked a bit into that switchy-thing ... For the normal switches and push buttons, I don't care which version to use, but expecially for the 1x12, 2x6, ... rotary switches the IEC symbol would look something like this:

I think in that case the circles really improves readability of the schematic ... but then that's just my opinion ... What do you think?

JAN

[diggit]

Switches are ok.
I am not fan of new diodes design. In 90% cases, I saw hollow triangle and I am more familiar with them. Even old design was ok, what was wrong on old design?

[maximeborges]

For me the old one are really more explicit

But I think that using the IEC by default is the best thing to do for KiCad. Maybe still having these alternative symbols could be useful though.
For the diode it's the new revision of the IEC symbol if I'm not mistaken.

[jkriege2]

@diggit : I changed them to make the diodes IEC-conformant (which requires a non-filled triangle) ... but please: I want your opinions on this ... as I'm doing electronics as a hobby, I'm not bound to any standard and usually choose the symbol that pleases my eye more (see switches!)

Best,
JAN

[maximeborges]

IEC for standardizing the libraries, _ALT for more explicit symbols like big switches and speaker (IMO).

[CarlPoirier]

@jkriege2 I'm fine with your proposal for the resistor networks except one thing and it is the _DIP and _SIP suffix. Again, this makes no sense when one uses a BGA package.

[jkriege2]

@CarlPoirier
Hhmmm ... looking around I didn't find any BGA resistor arrays that could be used together with one of the proposed symbols. Usually they have 3 or 4 rows of balls (see e.g. https://www.koaglobal.com/en/product/br.aspx) ... so in the end we would need an additional symbol for resistor networks anyways!

Do you have any proposal for another designator, except _DIP and _SIP? Maybe _2PinRows instead of _DIP (but which is more or less the same ;-)

I'm open for suggestions ...

Best,
JAN

PS: What do you think on the swicthes and the diodes topic?

[Schlumpf]

For the diodes/switches topic: In my opinion, @maximeborges's idea could be a good way...

[jkriege2]

at all:
To make the remaining topics a bit more visible, here's a list:

Switches

• switch to IEC-conformant symbols before merging
• switch to IEC-conformant symbols after merging in a new PR
• add IEC-conformant symbols as alternative before merging
• add IEC-conformant symbols as alternatives after merging in a new PR
• don't add IEC-conformant symbols for now (can be done later, if someone wants it)
  • @jkriege2

Diodes

• keep IEC-conformant symbols (non-filled triangles)
  • @jkriege2
• switch back to non-IEC-conformant symbols (filled triangles)
  • @jkriege2
• add non-IEC-conformant symbols (filled triangles) as _ALT alternatives

Resistor Networks:

Proposals for naming scheme:

• keep _DIP, _SIP:
  • @jkriege2

• [ ] change _DIP, _SIP (please give proposed new appendix!):

Best,
JAN

PS: Please add questions if I missed some!

[CarlPoirier]

@jkriege2 I suggest making the _DIP ones the default and calling the _SIP ones _pinswap1 or any other suffix.

[jkriege2]

@CarlPoirier : The problem is _" pinswap1 or any other suffix" ... i.e. WHICH suffix.

Maybe anothzer proposal:
We use R_PACK_n_ for the DIP-style packages and R_PACK_n__SIP for the SIP-style (i.e. old R_NET_n_PAR_SIP ... in the end they are only available in SIP with this pinout (I think)). The drawback is you don't get all if you search for R_NET

Suggestions?

JAN

[CarlPoirier]

@jkriege2 This is a fair proposition. So: "R_PackX" like now and and "R_PackX_SIP".

[jkriege2]

Hi!

OK, resistors are renamed now:

• R_NetworkXX for standard networks ("star topology")
• R_Network_divider_xXX for volateg divider style networks
• R_PackXX for parallel resistors in a DIP-style package
• R_PackYY_SIP for parallel resistors in a SIP-style package

So I think mainly the question of the diodes remains ... What do you think on that? SHould we have both or only one alternative?

Best,
JAN

[CarlPoirier]

Awesome. For diodes, I'd go for non-IEC conformant as _ALT. Everyone will be happy, then.

[jkriege2]

@CarlPoirier OK, I added now _ALT-sybols for the basic diodes (D, LED, D_Photo, D_Shottky, D_Zener ...) ... not yet for the more complex devices (Bridges, TRIAC, Thyristor, ...) as that would blow up the library. Do you think we should double them too?

cu
JAN

[CarlPoirier]

I think we can merge like this for now!

Anyone else have comments before?

[Schlumpf]

I agree with @CarlPoirier. Other possible improvments can be discussed in own PRs.

[jkriege2]

go ahead :-))) 👍

[CarlPoirier]

Here we go!

Congrats to Jan for the hard work and to all the reviewers!

[jkriege2]

Thanks also from me to everyone who contributed 👍

JAN