Crystal Oscillator Layout

[luky315]

I am asking myself if it is worth breaking a few "good design practices" like never make a trace leaving a SMD pad with an angle other than multiples of 90° for a shorter trace to the crystal (CFPX-180 package in this case)
It looks a bit wrong and also a bit strange to me using variant 2, so what do you say?

[Benta]

I see no problem with the angles.
But I see a problem having no thermal reliefs on your ground plane. Big potential for bad solder joints.

[SiliconWizard]

I am asking myself if it is worth breaking a few "good design practices" like never make a trace leaving a SMD pad with an angle other than multiples of 90° for a shorter trace to the crystal (CFPX-180 package in this case)
It looks a bit wrong and also a bit strange to me using variant 2, so what do you say?

What difference do you think it will make?

[MarkT]

The only issue I see is that the 45 degree trace slightly encroaches on the other pad - normally this would be a design-rule error, but here the pad has its corner cut-off which isn't great, not that its an actual problem as its microns.

Its just a crystal, not an oscillator, BTW.

[luky315]

I don't use thermals on my GND plane for SMD components except on very big inductors and I never had a problem, they are soldered by hand, reflow and even vapor phase.