Why different components on the same line in the BOM ?

[chipeater]

Hello,

I'm a beginner on Altium. I started a new project and created my own library.
For example, I have a component with the design item ID : CAP_0603_XR7_50V and an other one with CAP_1210_X7R_50V
But when I generate the BOM, these two different components end up on the same line ( line 110 )

They are not sorted by value, since on a different line I also have a 10uF capacitor, but with the ID CAP_1206_X7R_10V ( line 111 ).



Do you know what im doing wrong ?

Thank you very much 

[langwadt]

wrong footprint ?

[chipeater]

I don't think so. The footprint given for capacitors in 0603 is CAPC1608X90N and for 1210 it's CAPC3225X220N.

And even if the footprints were the same, they're two different components, so Altium should put them on two separate lines, don't you think?
Otherwise I'd have the same problem with resistors or TVS, for example, but this isn't the case 

[tszaboo]

You have to group by Libref and Comment. But don't do it this way, the comment is not for that. Make your own "Value" filed, or better yet, define a maker and part number for it.

[chipeater]

Thank you very much, I fixed it quickly for this time like that but I will add a field value in the parameters section for my next project 

[ajawamnet]

Actually - the comment field can be used for that.  In fact, back in versions like 99SE it was about the only way to do it.    Been doing it like this for decades. 

Here's a link to a simple system I used for decades https://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/parts/parts.htm

Easy to get to when placing a part, doesn't get in the way of the design process (not having to deal with multiple clicks and navigation just to place a 10k 0603 5% resistor)

It also helps with ensuring good relational database practices, where you want to limit duplication of the same data across multiple systems. 

Also, since my clients products incorporate multiple engineering disciplines, it folds nicely into their overall MRP ( Material Requirements Planning) systems (see https://www.techtarget.com/searcherp/definition/material-requirements-planning-MRP ) . 

Their build processes have a lot more than just PCB's... and it allows my customers control over their builds, even if they do not have Altium. 

For instance, I have one client I designed over 300 PCB's for. These are staples of various comm systems and have been on the market for years.   So they have been through many builds over the years and as parts go obsolete/EOL, or component manufacturers get acquired (been happening quite frequently with companies like LT, Maxim being bought by Analog) and part source information changes,  they have control over their AVL (approved vendor list) and do not require me to be involved.

So then, if I design a new or derived product, it doesn't matter what's in my Altium design - that simple key field via the Comment field will now link to any changes that have been made to their internal MRP system.

For me, I'm not concerned with what manufacturer a client chooses for a part with matching FFF (Form, Fit, Function).  In fact, many clients have stock of differing 10k 0603 5% resistors at their respective CM's  (Contract Manufacturers). 

  Also, the MRP and WFM systems at a lot of my customers must go through various accreditations and include features for IIR (Incoming Inspection Reports) and CPM (Counterfeit Parts Mitigation). My one client goes through grueling audits like those for AS9100 that make ISO look like a walk in the park.


  And as to using any type of 365 thing, most of my customers have issue with possible open source intelligence gathering that can occur when using on line services/SaaS type systems.  A few clients even use OWT's (One Way Transfers - see https://patents.google.com/patent/US8250235B2/en ) along with disparate purchasing to obfuscate the organization's purchases.   

A great story about a similar thing was the need for titanium back during the development of the SR-71.   At the time the largest supplier was the USSR.  So they set up shell companies to purchase it. 

So this all goes back to when relational databases came about.  The idea was to have key fields that only have the necessary data to link to other tables.  And in this case, allows for customers with very different internal MRP systems to link to my past and future designs. 

All without ever having to interact with me again.  Yea, I guess it ain't great for me -  from a shiny shoes business perspective. Like how the software companies and others (BMW heated seats?) are keen on things like SaaS for insuring a recurrent revenue stream, but it IS GREAT for my customers - they have total control over their product builds.  I know how I feel when companies try to tie me into some sort of "subscription".  Since 1982, I've been burned by that many times.

I don't want to do that to my customers...

ON A SIDE NOTE:  I see BMW stopped the licensing of heated seats. 

[ajawamnet]

BTW - in that link I posted - https://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/parts/parts.htm  I mention QualeCAD and the documentation it creates for things like hand builds --
see this example:
http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/parts/EMB0032TopSideBuildSheets.pdf


Back in the day the only thing that it used to differentiate part types was the comment field - also known as Part Type.  Even to this day, PartType is one of the available fields in the Bill of Materials output job.  See attached screenshot of Protel 99SE and a BOM from an Ad23.9 output job.  Note how PartType and Comment are the same.