FEDEVEL
Platform forum

ADTeasdale , 07-17-2024, 02:24 PM

Hi everyone. I'm currently in the process of moving from KiCAD to Altium as my main PCB tool. It's fair to say I'm encountering a few challenges getting up to speed with the different ways of doing things! The FEDEVEL community is a great resource and I'm looking forward to doing some of the courses.

The specific query I have is about a Wago connector I’m using which has two pads for each connection. In KiCAD I would just have multiple pads named ‘1’ ‘2’ etc. as shown below. This seems to throw an error in part creating in Altium. I note you can do clever things with jumper IDs etc, but this feels a little long-winded.

What is the accepted practice for this sort of situation in Altium – how do other people handle it?

Mini , 07-17-2024, 02:51 PM

Have you googled first?

Mini , 07-17-2024, 02:51 PM

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/403080/altium-assign-one-pin-to-multiple-pads

Mini , 07-17-2024, 02:51 PM

https://fedevel.com/forum/altium-designer/17187-how-to-assign-many-pads-to-one-pin-when-creating-a-symbol-in-altium

ADTeasdale , 07-17-2024, 04:10 PM

Thank you for your reply. I did extensively search before asking the question and felt the question to be sufficiently different to warrant asking.

The examples given in your references (which I had read) include a generic package – a SO-8, for example – which very clearly has 8 separate pins. In some devices – MOSFETs being a good example – some of these may be connected internally, so the discussion is then about how to represent this schematically – the footprint of an SO-8 being clearly defined and understood as an 8-terminal device. In the MOSFET case, in KiCAD you might stack multiple pins to connect them electrically. In Altium it seems you would either show all pins and connect in the schematic or use pin mapping to show multiple pins connected to one terminal on a schematic symbol. This is all clear to me.

My question is about what I feel to be a very different type of footprint. This part is unequivocally a three terminal device. It is a terminal block connecting three wires to a PCB. Both the SMT and THT versions have, for mechanical reasons, two PCB pads per terminal, both of which physically connect to the same lump of metal. This is very common for PCB mount terminal blocks. Such footprints in KiCAD have pairs of pads with the same label, so that a 3 wire terminal block has 3 logical pads, not 6. I couldn't find a canonical way of representing them in Altium.

In the case of this 3-terminal connector, I personally would like the schematic symbol to reflect the reality that it is a three terminal device. Using jumper IDs for pairs of pins might achieve this. Pin mapping would, as in the case of the MOSFET, imply showing two pad names on each pin, which is confusing to the reader as it does not reflect the nature of the device.

I really don’t mind what the solution is here, I just thought it was reasonable to ask how others handle something like a PCB mounted terminal block with two pads per terminal.

ADTeasdale , 07-17-2024, 04:18 PM

As additional data points, I have found two further approaches in manufacturer part search. This part appears to do what I would have done in KiCAD, with pairs of pads with matching names. By default this throws an error for me when creating a part.

ADTeasdale , 07-17-2024, 04:20 PM

I think I understand the intent in this second part, but I can't say I like the approach [bearing in mind pin 1 and MP1, 2 and MP2 are physically connected in the device]

ADTeasdale , 07-17-2024, 04:21 PM

Any suggestions based on established practice would be very welcome.

QDrives , 07-17-2024, 08:17 PM

What/where is the error you are getting?
I do the same and do not get an error, but I also change Altium settings.

Robert Feranec , 07-18-2024, 01:20 AM

I create separate pins and draw the connection in symbol with a blue line - what you created looks ok to me. This is often used for example in tactile switches.

ADTeasdale , 07-18-2024, 10:08 AM

I get the error at the point of component validation on saving the component to the server [as attached]. There is the option to ignore and release anyway, but this felt like suboptimal practice.

QDrives , 07-18-2024, 08:06 PM

Why do you only get the error for pad 1 and not 2 and 3?
Did you connect both pads together with a trace or something else?
I had "free" pads in the past too causing problems.
Is pin 1 connected to something in your schematic?

My biggest concern is that I am unable to find where this violation would be defined... It looks like the project options, but that has nothing on "duplicate pad designator".

ADTeasdale , 07-18-2024, 08:11 PM

Sorry, I did indeed get the error for all three pads. Having tried an alternative approach, I just modified pin 1 to throw the error again so I could send a screen grab. I appreciate that is confusing.

ADTeasdale , 07-18-2024, 08:16 PM

To avoid confusion, this is the full error message.

ADTeasdale , 07-18-2024, 08:20 PM

Hi Robert, thanks for replying – and also for the effort that goes in to producing your training material. I completed Altium’s own training course and found it lacking, so I’m very much looking forward to finding time to complete some of your courses.
Tactile switches are an excellent comparison – although as it happens I’ve always drawn all pads on a tactile switch on the schematic symbol in KiCAD. We’ve used KiCAD as our primary tool for 8 years now, and in switching to Altium I’m keen to adopt best practices rather than trying to make it work the way we’re used to in KiCAD. Showing every pin connection on a schematic symbol – even if it is 20 shield connections on an SFP cage, say, is definitely a shift in approach from the way I’d got used to doing things. Grateful for the feedback received.

QDrives , 07-18-2024, 08:25 PM

Clear. So that remains this question:
Did you connect both pads together with a trace or something else?

QDrives , 07-18-2024, 08:30 PM

Robert, just as myself, have used Altium for many years. I started with AD10 (evaluation) and an actual board in AD12. Robert perhaps a few releases earlier.
In the old versions it was not possible to have a nice schematic symbol and footprint. Both needed unique designators.
In the schematic I placed multiple pins on top of each other. The problem with this is that you get a connection dot when you connect a wire to it.
Now there is the pin mapper, finally no more connection dots.

QDrives , 07-18-2024, 08:31 PM

By the way, do you only get this error when you do the project releaser?
Or do you also get it when validating or running the design rule check?