I’m going to see if @steelgoose 's odd shaped board holes will work for this. In theory it may (I don’t think the mounting holes need plating). As you say the pads are to close to allow a hole to be used for the tabs.
Edit: Nope, doesn’t look like it will work. Over and above that the slots didn’t make it, the pads are misscaled (perhaps because they are too small) in the gerbers. Maybe someone else can figure out a fix.
USB_3.1_typeC_usb_connector.fzpz (9.7 KB)
Peter
If I had these connectors already and was trying to make a board I would bend the tabs out and make the footprint an smd pad like the micro usb ones.
Micro usb footprint
Out of curiosity, how far from a Release Candidate or another Beta was ver 0.93b?
Assuming “was” above should be “is”, it is hard to say. The new gerber code (which is the biggest change) has been backed off as not working. The development environment is now building correctly (it didn’t used to). It has been said if we get a reasonable stable build, that they are agreeable to doing a new release but without the gerber code I don’t currently see enough fixes to make a release worthwhile. I’m working on fixing some of the file type bugs in case there is a new release , but its going slowly. So I’d guess it isn’t going to be soon but I don’t really know. Getting a stable buildable head is a good start though.
Peter
Thanks a lot for your answers, we could finish our work because of you.
just an idea but if the part cant work because of the mounts, would it be possible to do something like this. as the part will still fit to the mount and overlap the connector (basically square off the ports, overlapped the old mount over suggested new one on pic) ?
new to this so heres hoping… plus dont know if i’ve built the svg correctly, as no defined copper layers lol still learning.
after re-reading , are you saying its not possible to add any slots?
@customerx, @sublimeartistry, @vanepp
Well, you are right in all cases; You can’t overlap drill holes “it would probably snap the drill bits”. I just use a round hole when possible, but not always possible. I have seen boards with these slots but I don’'t think they were made by a 0.6mm router bit. I believe these slots are laser drilled… most modern pcb machines have laser drills for the very small holes. But there is no way to draw them up in Fz or tell the fab house how to cut them. The tabs really need to be there to help line up the part for the smt solder pads and the part gets a lot of stress.
My suggestion would be, is to drill a hole at each end of the slot and as many holes in-between on the longer slots leaving a space in-between the holes so the holes don’t touch each other. Then take an x-acto knife and cuts the tabs out making it a slot. I believe the copper is just so the housing will be grounded and the solder will take care of that when you solder the tabs in.
In response to "sublimeartistry"
Not all of us are programmers and if we could correct the problems we would have done it already.
I got the impression from previous posts that is was only a missing dll. Some even suggested download links.
This is why I was wondering why you do not add it.
However, even though I downloaded and installed it (not only the dll but the complete distributable) but still it is not working, so this means that it is not as simple as this.
All in all, I have the feeling that many people are affected by this and i anyone could help it would be great to do so.
Sorry if i offended someone. Didn’t mean to do so!
it looks like using a dif program, or learning quite some more before what I want is going to be achieved this way, appreciate all your hard work guys. 
The runtime download is certainly a requirement, that doesn’t mean that more things can go wrong though. What isn’t working now? The most common problem after the runtime dll is not waiting for the parts update to finish and/or closing the program before it finishes (a progress bar for that download is one of the projects on my list of things to fix). It that happens you need to delete the user directories to clear the corruption. There are a number of posts on how to do that or I can provide instructions.
Peter
Unfortunately there was more wrong than just the scaling. Some of the pins in schematic were also wrong (likely due to the pins not being in sequence) and the grounds weren’t bussed. In the end I renumbered the pins as that was easier than trying to figure out the current scheme and cleaned up schematic and changed a couple of pins that don’'t match the current data sheet on the manufacturer’s site.
edit: replaced by a new part posted below.
Peter
What makes them “wrong”. They work and they are connected to the correct pins in other views. I feel this is what I was mentioning about your script. It is strict in trying to enforce the manual file creation method where the parts editor lets you link any pin to any other pin in any view you want. They do not need to the same names or numbers or anything else.
Also are you 100% sure the grounds are bussed on the little breakout board that holds the actual esp32 chip? I was not sure and so I left them unbussed enuring they all get connected to ground eternally so you can’t leave one unconnected thinking it was connected internally.
I was going to have a look at what you did in fritzing but you again uploaded a part that can not be loaded because you manually changed the files but you didn’t change the unique id that makes it different from the one I uploaded making them incompatible with each other. I will also not replace the one I have with yours because it would likely break the sketches I’ve designed around my part.
OK, I have created my version as a new part below which will load separate from the original. In the original schematic note that there is one too many grounds, and pins pin 15 to 19 are out of order, CMD is missing and IO20 on pin 32 is shown as NC instead according to the data sheet at.
The pins in breadboard don’t match up with those in schematic (I didn’t check if pcb matched, it may have). That the grounds may not be internally bused is correct as I don’t have one.
ESP-WROOM-32 [ESP-32S] Module_fixed.fzpz (20.4 KB)
Peter
Thanks for spelling it out for me. 
The extra ground in the schematic was labeled wrong as you say. You changed it from GND in schematic and RTS everywhere else to CMD everywhere which goes better with the SD2 and SD3 around it.
The pins being out of order I think are because this was based off of a breadboard friendly breakout board that someone had made and the pins matched the breakout board. Then someone made the module alone and just reused the schematic.
Good catch on there being no GPIO20 and actually being NC.
Whenever I am trying to figure out the connections for one of these modules I always go and find one of these cheat sheets so I can see all the different possible labels for each pin. I also use it while making connections instead of relying entirely on the labels.
Last thing is my part has nicer mouse overs then yours. When you mouse over any of my pins they just say what the label is. With yours it shows Fritzing pin number which is of zero use and only confuses things. Like if you mouse over IO12 on your board it says PIN14:IO12 and on my board it says IO12. This makes the chance of making a mistake that much greater. I think this may be because you assign them in the svg where as the editor assigns them in the fzp file? Not that it really matters just something I noticed while comparing them.
Not the svg its all in the fzp file. The difference is likely that the editor is setting both the description and the name field to the same thing and it then supresses one of them. Does it also manage to supress the internal label somehow (that is annoying but I don’t know of a way to get rid of it)? That is also a reason to have the pins in sequence since (due to a bug I expect) Fritzing will screw up the labels when the pins are not in sequence. It appears to assume the next number and labels it wrong then generally screws up the label on the next pin along before recovering.
Peter
After setting multiple circuits on the large board, Some options are:
Make the board and cut with razor knife (make several score lines).
If you have access to a Milling machine, mill the cut and/or create gcode.
Make lot’s of holes, then score a few cut-lines across them. It’s a cheesy way to do it but, it works.
Create your own pcb with multiple sections
You can use the ‘Hole’ part in Fritzing. Example shown…
I don’t know if this belongs here but if you’re talking about future features I believe the parts bin needs a radical rethink.
It must have worked as a POC with a very short component list but I’m finding it very hard to navigate now and surely it will get worse if ranges of ICs are added.
Sure, we are discussing future directions and volume isn’t so far a problem getting people willing to do the work is though . While I agree both parts bin and search need work (search is even worse than parts bin in my view) it is well down my list after learning the source to fix bugs and add new features, doing more work on the parts check script and fixing up existing parts. That said, of the two parts bin is easier because non core parts are user changeable (search is possibly a code change or possibly better tags in individual parts either of which are more complex). You can move things around in the parts bins and create new bins for your self with the current code with no code changes needed. If you (or any one else reading) would like to help, that would be an easy place to start. Move stuff around in the bins and add new bins to better arrange the bins and post what does and doesn’t work for you (including what code changes would improve the situation but realizing implementing is likely to take a long time). For core parts, once you have a better arrangement (which you can demonstrate by copying the part in to the mine parts bin then moving it where you want) that can be done by submitting a change to the parts repro on github which is also much easier and more timely than a code change.
Peter
I’m learning how to make parts and have made PCB layouts for two PC817 surface mount packages which are missing from fritzing. My issue is that the sizing is as per the datasheet in Inkscape but seem off when imported into fritzing.
I have my limit of one linked and I was hoping someone could tell me what I am doing wrong
I’ll see if I can help.
The first thing I notice is you have all the Inkscape labels set and that is not needed. It will not hurt anything but Fritzing only looks at the ID which you have also set. You don’t even have to set the copper pad names at all if you are using the parts editor in Fritzing to assign the connections.
I also notice everything is set to px and unless you are using the correct px per mm the scaling will be wrong. If you go into the document properties (under the file menu) you can set the document to mm (or inches). Then in the main window when you are using the selection tool you can also set the units to mm (or inches) at the top where you adjust the location and dimensions of an object. Once you have set those can you confirm they are the right dimensions? I get 2.2mm x 1.7mm for each pad and they are 8.2mm apart which is correct according to the datasheet I checked. Once saved it should always open as mm after changing the document properties.
The next thing I notice is you have all the copper and silkscreen groups inside another group and that group has a transform which could be the issue. If you select the entire thing and press ctrl+shift+g it will ungroup them into 2 groups (silkscreen and copper1) and remove the extra transform.
The last thing is save as a plain svg not an Inkscape svg as they contain extra data that Fritzing does not want/need.
Here is the file after doing the above. I have not tried building a part with it but it should be easy for you to try changing the svg. I hope this helps and I hope one of them is the cause of the issue. If it still has the issue how are you checking the dimensions after building the part?
