Sunstone Printed Circuit Board Forum

We're opening up this thread for reports of parts that may have an error in the definition. If you find an inaccuracy in a part, feel free to add it to this discussion thread. PCB123 technical support can then keep you updated as to the resolution status.

I used the footprint 68_PIN_SCSI_MALE (in a custom part) and received the following DRC error: Pad annular ring too small with object U1.69. Required annular is 15.0 mils. Actual annular is 4.0 mils. Thanks!

Thanks for reporting the issue. You can just make the mounting holes non-plated or increase the annular ring to clear the drc. I will report the issue.

Thanks for your feedback. Can you provide an example of a part that you used? I will forward the details to our software development team.

I ordered a board with several generic jumper (header) footprints. The through hole sizes were a tad small for the generic jumper parts I had. The problem was that the jumper header pins are square in crosssection, requiring a slightly larger hole, which would have otherwise been ok. Perhaps Sunstone could consider making the hole sizes of the generic jumpers a bit larger.

Thank you for reporting the issue. I have updated the libraries that contain the SOT89 footprint and submitted them to our development team for release in a future build.

I suspect that 3 pin components from the NXP library which involve an SOT89 footprint may have a pin mix-up. Example. PBSS5320X. The footprint are labeled 1,2,3 from left to right. Within the NXP documentation, (http://www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/PBSS5520X.pdf) the footprint should be labeled 3,2,1 from left to right. Since the component is a surface mount, the incorrect pin labeling make the circuit inoperational. I have verified that flipping the transistor over will fix the circuit. Unfortunately, "flipping" the transistor over is awkward and is a crude workaround at best.

I am using the LTV-817S footprint from the Sunstone website for my PCB but when I run DRC it shows the error: One Components overlap Error. Any inputs for that?

Yes, this is not a problem with the part. You can find more information regarding the error with this thread:

understanding-the-component-overlap-warning-t279.html