Do we want to include the EP size in the 3d model names? about kicad-packages3d HOT 3 CLOSED

I suggest we have EP-specific 3D models. This seems like a lot more work and maintenance, but hopefully with scripting it's not too bad.

Here is the reason: If we use a single non-EP 3D model then it would appear the pad on the footprint doesn't match. And if we use a non-matching 3D model since some generic EP size, distance between pins on the footprint and the pad cannot be determined.

I've seen this problem in the past where a footprint existed and a new component with a bigger pad than the original component was used. The pad and pins shorted together randomly during reflow. It was tough to figure out what happened and using an x-ray was mandatory. The value of being able to review this kind of thing before getting a board fabricated by using matching footprints and 3D models is huge (if the user knows to check it out, anyway).

from kicad-packages3d.

For BGA we have decided to include only the balls on the perimeter and not inside because of the file size...
https://forum.kicad.info/t/3d-new-library-for-mechanical-cad-exporting-and-enclosure-design/1763/276
the user can generate the full balls model from the scripts on request.
Many users are already questioning on a 3D library file size, so I wouldn't add all the sub-models to the standard library... The user can always generate an accurate model from the scripts, in case of need. Moreover 3D model is just a reference to check the footprint. Best is by designing it accordingly to ds specification.
KiCad Library man power is very limited ATM...

from kicad-packages3d.

Ok in that case i will add the ep size to the models we already have. (use the rename information i will also use for the symbol modification.)
Otherwise these models would not really make sense and we would need to create models without exposed pads. (A lot of footprints currently only exist as ep versions.)

from kicad-packages3d.