Hacker News Reader

Comment by yitchelle | Hacker News Reader

What I would really like to see if the IC manufacturer would release all the data necessary for integrating their part into the design. The data would include a

* spice model for simulation

* a schematic symbol for capturing it into a schematic,

* a PCB footprint for laying it out onto the artwork.

But that would mean that the CAD folks would have to agree on a data format, but I afraid hell would freeze over before that happens. /rant off. Great idea - keep up the good work.

View on HN

So ... if manufacturers don't do this, then what we need is a way to allow a community to contribute this kind of information.

Like a GitHub for electronic models, and related data.

Engineers can contribute their own models on SnapEDA. They are then available to download in all formats. However, for quality reasons, we create the vast majority of models.

Sounds good, but how open is this? Is it like GitHub, where source code is owned by the authors/community (and not by GitHub), or is everything you upload owned by SnapEDA?

Also, can other toolmakers openly access these libraries?

Everything uploaded is licensed under the Creative Commons with Design Exception upon download. This means engineers need to credit the source/author when reposting the content online, but as soon as it's integrated into a design it becomes the downloader's IP. This way, if you're working at a big company, you can license the product under the terms of your choosing.

That’s the last thing I’d trust, Joe Public creating device models. Leave that to the device modeling groups at the semiconductor companies.

We understand this concern which is why we build the vast majority of content.

We also work with component manufacturers to help them create or translate their content to various formats. Here's an example: https://www.snapeda.com/parts/4N32-X001/Vishay/view-part/.

User-generated content is supported due to popular demand, but we deprioritize it in favor of semiconductor-generated, or SnapEDA-generated content. We also have an automated verification checker that exposes the quality of UGC on each part page.

I’m talking about semiconductor models, not footprints or 3D CAD models.

Thanks for this, and that's a great idea.

Because there is no common format that all electronics CAD vendors support, we have created our own. We then export to the various PCB design software formats.

Here's an example of how we've worked with Vishay to make the symbols, footprints, and 3D models available in one place: https://www.snapeda.com/parts/SFH6319T/Vishay/view-part/. Please stay tuned for simulation models!

The format problem has been around ever since schematic design moved into the digital world. Surprise that nothing has even come close to a standard. Getting the IC manufacturer's support on your creation is a great step in the right direction. Does your symbols have the right attributes for the CAD tools do design rule checks and validation?

Hi yitchelle, as part of our creation standards, all of our symbols contain the right attributes for DRC checks. If you're interested, you can read our standards here: https://www.snapeda.com/standards/.

> But that would mean that the CAD folks would have to agree on a data format

Or the data could just be released in a bunch of formats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com