You could just grab a PCB that size and put parts on it at their correct locations and it will be that part.
Do you want all views, or just one of the views in detailed. That is not going to be that easy if you want BB view - PCB view will be easier, but it’s still a weird shape -. Basically can you do a vector drawing of that PCB shape.
The curx of parts is that you draw a svg of the part, then on the top layer you add pins. Grouping is another story, ie, BB and SCH has 1 group, but PCB has special groups.
There is a lot of Raspberry pi hat part information in this thread. If none of that works, I can create the bare weird shape for either/both breadboard and pcb views, IF someone can point me to the dimension information.
I’ve tried to create it by myself but I failed. So I’m asking for your help.
In the Image you see the PCB i need. The Double Pinheaders (J4, J5, J6) should not be in it, they are there just to show the distance.
Practically there are only 3 40-Pin-Header.
@opera_night Based on the image supplied by @M4TTHI, the top row of headers is 0.2 inches off where it should be. There were 2 x 2 pin headers between that and the vertical headers rows. Should just need a block select, and move left by 0.2 inches. Also vertical positioning is different, so height looks to be slightly to small.
I know the exact dim’s (I wrote software to measure from any image). However, I did NOT bother to locate and size per the real dim’s. Why? Because I prefer folks do their own dialing-in (and learning). That’s why I said
Note: Commonsense should inform a user (of any tool) that 0.1mm is the thickness of an average Human Hair. Thus, fussing about exact accuracy beyond the decimal point is like the difference between a glass of water =/- one drop.
You can see the measurement of the Pitch (actual correct = 2.54 (assume) and tool measures 2.52mm the delta is far, far less than human hair…)
Might also check the Cutout: the PDF/image shows a slotbutthe Graphic of the complete product shows a wide full-length Notch (cutout).
Also, it’s very common to find China/other-made product documentation does not reflect some of the actual product builds. Why? Because:
• Different vendors make the same part and the sales company does not separate them out or distinguish them as different (they are Clones with the same general part number). Also, if/when the part gets modified/redesigned, the documentation seldom gets updated.
Thus, when I buy parts, I check the dim’s and then I make the Part model. Prior to that, the models I use are ‘place-holders’…
Here is a preliminary version of the GSV 6Pi Shield part. I used information from a few different sources to create the breadboard and pcb footprints. This should be functional but barely.
I have generic pin labels in the part definition and on the schematic view, with none on breadboard and pcb. The basic mounting holes and headers should be accurately positioned, but I did not have dimensions for the rest. I can see that the resource I used for sculpting the board edges does not match the image for the actual shield part. I did not attempt to adjust for that. This is a 6 channel unit, and from the labels in the image, the headers have a block of pins for each unit. The schematic should reflect that by grouping the appropriate pins together. Even better might be to create schematic sub parts, so that the block of connections for each individual channel could be moved around the schematic independently. Any pins that are common between the channel blocks should be put into a bus, or added to one that already exists (gnd and 3v3). I also added tags and properties in the definition to mark this as preliminary.
If you have dimension offsets, the sculpted edge is easy (for me) to adjust. It is a matter of adding to one number, and subtracting from another to either move or resize the cutouts. 2 sets of numbers to change the curvature for the smooth corners.
