How do I properly add through-hole pads within a polygon pad in the package editor and device editor?

This is what I have tried: In the package editor, I have created a polygon pad on the top layer. I have added many through-hole pads within the polygon pad. In the device editor, I connect/append all of the through-hole pads to a schematic pin called "GND". Then, I add the part to my schematic and generate the board file. The problem is that when I open the board file in the layout editor, there is a complicated ratsnest between all the through-hole pads. This confuses me because these pads should already be connected electrically. Why is there a ratsnest?

What is the proper way to do this?


1 Answer 1


Unfortunately that's just the way it is. The polygon inside the package doesn't count towards the ratsnest. If you think about it you haven't been able to give the polygon a name or assign it to a pin in the schematic symbol, so how does it know what net it is part of?

What is special about polygons in the package is that as long as the polygon is not shorting pins of more than one net, it won't cause a DRC issue, even though it is not part of a net. Also it won't be cut away from the copper (it will stay filled in the exact area it is drawn).

As to the solution? Well, you have several options.

  1. Connect all the ratsnest up with wires. Tedious I know, but there you go. This is probably the best option as if you join all the wires with a direct line (not the auto-45 degree or 90 degree option, but the straight line), then the lines will follow the package nicely as you move it around.
  2. Don't add the polygon in the footprint, add it in the layout editor. A bit of a pain as you have to remember exactly where it goes.
  3. Add it in both. You get the copper in the package of the exact shape required, and then you can add a polygon in the layout of an arbitrary shape which covers up all the ratsnest area without having to worry about getting it to be the correct size needed.
  4. Ignore the ratsnest lines. Actually, don't, number 4 is a bad idea...
  • \$\begingroup\$ That pretty much sums it up. Guess it's good to know I was not doing anything wrong. I will probably just connect everything with wires. \$\endgroup\$
    – Stephen305
    Feb 16, 2016 at 6:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.