schematic vs layout

[thom]

I'm about to embark on a loophole, and I was wondering why IC3 appeared reversed on the layout compared to the schematic (notice the slot).



It looks like the right way round is on the layout (although the pin numbers seem correct on the schematic compared to the datasheet, it's just the slot throwing me out  )

[slacker]

Like you, I think the layout is correct, the connections make sense compared to the datasheet, and match the connections on the schematic if you follow the pin numbers rather than their position. On the schematic it looks like the part has been mirrored along it's long axis, so the pin numbering is correct but the orientation is wrong, imagine you're looking at it from below instead of from above and it makes sense.

[KazooMan]

I agree with slacker.  The pin numbering on the schematic is what you would have if you were looking at it from below (pin side, not the top).  Are any of the other ICs on the schematic numbered?  If so, do they follow the same (strange) convention?

The datasheet I found for this IC uses the standard method.  With the face up and the marker (a dot in this case) at the top, the upper left pin is number one.

[armdnrdy]

It looks to me like Brian mirrored the IC to make the schematic flow in a more "friendlier" fashion.

Remember...not all schematics show the IC pins in the exact order of the physical package.

In fact....not many do! 

[slacker]

True but then you don't normally draw the part so that it looks like the physical part, that's what's causing the confusion here.

[armdnrdy]

No more confusion.

[thom]

Thanks for clearing that out.
As far as the other ICs are concerned, they seem to be drawn in a more conventional way, i.e. split in different sections, so no confusion there