| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mike Warren |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 13:28:07
This is not a problem, but I'm curious how other people handle the naming of components.
Do you always rename and back-annotate (this is what I do), or do you make component naming flow at the schematic level and not worry about the physical location on the PCB?
Or do you do something more complicated like prefixes depending on the section of the circuit?
http://mike-warren.net |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| remi |
Posted - 15 Aug 2013 : 14:57:26
I never really cared for the components names but that seems to be a good idea for the user! |
| Mike Warren |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 21:36:25
Thanks for your replies.
http://mike-warren.net |
| John Baraclough |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 15:15:13
My approach is the same as yours, renumber the PCB and back-annotate the schematic. The end user has the PCB in their hand, not the schematic, and needs to be able to locate components easily. The most efficient way to achieve this is to have the components numbered in some logical way on the PCB. The numbering on the schematic is secondary.
-------------------------------------------------------
Birthdays are good for you: the more you have, the longer you live. |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 13 Aug 2013 : 14:53:32
I do it your way Mike. That is the "normal" convention. This means that you can easily find a component position on the pcb very easily
as you "read it like a book" if you renamed that way. I don't think it buys you anything doing it in the schematic editor.
Normally say if you are fault finding, you look at the component in the schematic and then try to find it on the pcb.
Iain
|
