> Based on your experience with Cadint, I would stick with that.  We never =
benefit
> from stock footprints; each company has their own idiosyncrasies on this =
topic and
> will likely want their own.  That said, when I need a new footprint, I ch=
oose one
> that is similar and then modify it.

That is what we do with our OrCad setup. We don't use the supplied footprin=
ts, but do them in house to our standards, even for standard JEDEC footprin=
ts.=20

There is always something "wrong" with the supplied footprint, be it pad le=
ngth, width, silkscreen shape, resist clearance, pastemask hole size, pin 1=
 pad shape, or any other parameter, that it is easier to start afresh.=20

At least footprint generation is reasonably mechanised in OrCad ...
--=20
Scanned by iCritical.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.