Potential bug in pick and place file

[larsVMB3B]

Hi!

When I export to manufacturing Gerber fields, the pick and place text files for front and back are missing out a handful of components. I my case they are all connectors like J1, J2, J3 etc.

Is this a bug?

However, if I ONLY export to a .mnt pick and place fil, all components are there. However, distances are now given in mils and front and back tagging for components are left out meaning this file cannot be used for my PCB manufacturer.

[jorge_garcia]

Hello @larsVMB3B,

I hope this message finds you well. There are many ULPs and tools for exporting pick and place files. The default tool run by the CAM processor excludes through-hole components. With that said, if you go into the ULPs you can run any of the mount family of ULPs and use the one most appropriate for your use case.

mount-smd-tht.ulp should cover most of your use cases.

Let me know if you run into anything else.

Best Regards,

[larsVMB3B]

Hi Jorge!

Thank you, that explains. In addition it seems some through-hole components are included while others are not.

Forgive me if this is a simple question, but how do these ULP:s work and how do I use mount-smd-tht.ulp?

Thanks in advance

[jorge_garcia · Accepted solution]

Hi @larsVMB3B,

I hope you're doing well. Easiest way to run a ULP is to type RUN in the Electronics command line and press enter. In the dialog that pops up search for mount, you'll find the various ULPs for pick and place output.

Let me know if you run into any problems.

Best Regards,

[n_welsh7KNFS]

Hi Jorge,

Is there a way to select the .ulp used by the 1-click CAM processor? Using the RUN command allows me to choose the ULP I want, but the CAM Processor is defaulting to using the SMD-only PnP template. 

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @n_welsh7KNFS,

I hope you're doing well. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to select which ULP gets used to export the PnP file. Ideally in the future we wouldn't need to use a ULP for this and we would have something built in that's more flexible. For now this is a workable solution but not the final state. 

I'll make an enhancement request for this.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[ruben_crispinoEK32Y]

@jorge_garcia not sure if I am correct, but this ULP completely ignores the assembly variants which is not a nice thing. Any update on your side regarding this feature request? 

[jorge_garcia]

Hello @ruben_crispinoEK32Y ,

I hope you're doing well. You are correct the ULP doesn't take into account the assembly variants. The ULP could be updated to take variants into account but that hasn't happened yet.

I'll create a request for this.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,

[ruben_crispinoEK32Y]

Thanks for the reply.

Something like an year ago you mentioned a new BOM tool was under
development. Still true?

[jorge_garcia]

Hi @ruben_crispinoEK32Y ,

That is still true, it's part of a larger Fusion initiative so the scope is very wide. It will likely take some time before that bears fruit.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.

Best Regards,