Who's paying for the library models on DigiKey and Mouser?

[RedLion]

Just something I was wondering about since I've been recently spring cleaning in my libraries and I downloaded a lot of 3D models from SamacSys and Ultra Librarian.

At my job we employ people to do just that, yet there they are free for everyone to download and play with. I can't really imagine someone doing this out of the goodness of their heart, so I was wondering what their business model is.

Are these companies owned by the suppliers or are they independent? Do they sell subscriptions for businesses?

[Doctorandus_P]

Digikey is a quite big sponsor of the KiCad project:

https://www.kicad.org/sponsors/sponsors/

They also bought the kicad.org domain name from some squatter and then donated it to KiCad.
They also made some KiCad tutorials and a library for KiCad.

So I won't be surprised if they also put a bit of resources into either making 3D models, or gathering them from other sources and making them available through their website. I also assume it's connected to some monitoring system.  If people who download those models also place orders for those parts,  then they have more reason to put more effort in such things.

[thm_w]

https://www.samacsys.com/component-search-engine/manufacturers-getting-started/

[Infraviolet]

I can see why people would be attracted to ordering parts from a seller which has the footprint libraries immediately ready on their webpages, when I was first beginning PCB design I didn't have the confidence to use any part I couldn't first find a library for, so buying parts from a seller which ensured their were libraries for every part would have been attractive.

[KrudyZ]

I don't use the vendor provided footprints, but I really like it if they include good step files on the product page.
The issue with footprints and schematic symbols is that there is no standard for layer assignment or drawing style.
A 3D CAD model on the other hand is quite universal and also more work to create from scratch.

[Damperhead]

It should be noted that the simulation models (Spice, IBIS) have been available free of charge to designers for a long time. Why not also Footprint and symbols! However, it should be noted that often the offered models are not what they should be. This has already been noticed decades ago in IBIS models. Too few points in the critical area of signal V-I Curves etc. Free symbols and footprints are what they are. They can work in prototypes and experiments, but they are not necessarily productive. Companies tend to make circuit diagram symbols according to their internal rules, so the offered symbols hardly fit directly into the documentation system, PLM, or meet the drawing rules. However, Siemens offers Expedition / PADS professional users a PartQuest portal where models can be downloaded for free. It will certainly make it easier for companies starting in the early stages of electronic design. This can be one marketing asset.

The component library is one of the most important parts in electronics design process, especially in terms of quality and reliability. It defines what the PCBA quality of the final product is.

https://eda.sw.siemens.com/en-US/pcb/partquest/portal/

[SiliconWizard]

There are just too many different EDA software to support them all.
Even the Spice models are often not fully "standard" Spice and some require specific Spice software to use them. But at least Spice is more standard to some extent.

Note that more and more component vendors DO provide EDA models these days, but most often through a third-party service such as Samacsys.

And finally, ALWAYS check the symbols and footprints against datasheets when you download them from these services. Errors are frequent, from benign (like ill-formed graphics that will generate DRC warnings) to much more severe (gross errors.)

[asmi]

Yeah, I prefer making footprints myself, but I heavely favor parts for which there are vendor-provided 3D step models, especially for anything in non-standard packages. That's why for connectors my first choice is always Samtec as they provide 3D step models for nearly all parts they manufacture.

[voltsandjolts]

That's why for connectors my first choice is always Samtec as they provide 3D step models for nearly all parts they manufacture.

Yup. Wurth are good for that too.

[SiliconWizard]

Yeah, I prefer making footprints myself, but I heavely favor parts for which there are vendor-provided 3D step models, especially for anything in non-standard packages. That's why for connectors my first choice is always Samtec as they provide 3D step models for nearly all parts they manufacture.

Oh, +1.
STEP models from vendors are a big plus. Not just for mechanical integration, but also just as a reasonable check that you didn't mess up the footprints.

[asmi]

STEP models from vendors are a big plus. Not just for mechanical integration, but also just as a reasonable check that you didn't mess up the footprints.

The reason I underscored connectors is that 3D models allow to verify mated configs to confirm which pin connects to which pin on the other side. I've lost count on how many times I got that part wrong , so this is a particular pain point for me. But in general, with the clear trend towards custom-built packages for power parts (like DC-DC converters and especially modules - nearly all of them have unique package and footprint designs), I also try to pick parts for which there are 3D models available. But if not, I always make one in freeCAD or OpenSCAD before making a footprint as it not only helps to confirm the footprint, but also allows DFM checks to make sure the board can actually be assembled (and reworked if neccessary).

It's very hard to "feel" the scale of things on a board while it's in eCAD on your screen and so it's very easy to pack things too tight and end up with a PCB which can not be assembled (or it's going to be super-hard and/or not very reliable). For example, on my recent FT2232H-based Xilinx FPGA programmer prototype I specified PUSB3BB2DF ESD protection diodes for USB data line, which seemed like a good idea for me because they were cheap, have super-low Cd and so are really high-speed - so I figured I will buy a big-ish batch of them and use them everywhere. Little did I think then about exactly HOW this device achieves such impressive stats! And so here I was, with a PCBs manufactured and delivered, no stencil (because I figured the board is rather simple so I can assemble it manually with a soldering iron and hot air gun), and a part that is just a bit larger than 0201 cap and yet has 3 pads, which are all underneath device! I did manage to solder it using a hot air gun, but to say it was a pain is a gross understatement.

[nimish]

Manufacturers or vendors themselves. You can sometimes see a subdomain with the manufacturer or distributor name. It's a good idea to have your parts pre-made to save people time.

It's clear though that at least some of these services use simple automation since they can't deal with non-standard pad sizes.