Forums

LTspice heads up

Started by Jim Thompson October 28, 2015
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:47:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>>I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >>Pspice... >> >>RL > >Yes. > > ...Jim Thompson
Sorry, I meant version4 of Pspice. The question is whether encrypted LTmodels will (still?) work on the same old and easily available versions of Pspice, or if they, like other vendors' encrypted models, need V9 or higher. RL
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:36:48 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:47:14 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: ><snip> > >>>I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >>>Pspice... >>> >>>RL >> >>Yes. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Sorry, I meant version4 of Pspice.
That's too far back for me to remember ;-) The earliest version I still have documentation for is PSpice v6.3. I presently use PSpice v15.7, which is 9 years old... that's when Cadence stopped really issuing updates... just cosmetic changes at $1800 a pop, plus I had to undo the INI file munges they did to castrate features :-(
> >The question is whether encrypted LTmodels will (still?) work on the >same old and easily available versions of Pspice, or if they, like >other vendors' encrypted models, need V9 or higher. > >RL
I've not tried an LTspice-encrypted model on PSpice. IIRC it doesn't work. PSpice-encrypted models only work on PSpice. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:36:48 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:47:14 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: ><snip> > >>>I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >>>Pspice... >>> >>>RL >> >>Yes. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Sorry, I meant version4 of Pspice. > >The question is whether encrypted LTmodels will (still?) work on the >same old and easily available versions of Pspice, or if they, like >other vendors' encrypted models, need V9 or higher. > >RL
I just tried an encrypted LTspice model (LT3971) on PSpice... nope, can't read it. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:25:14 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:20:57 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:33:50 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>LTspice heads up... >>>> >>>>Latest LTspice sync release over-wrote many text-based subcircuits >>>>with encrypted versions. >>>> >>>>So back up all the text-based ones before they disappear. >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>>Does Ver4 Pspice run encrypted subcircuits? >>> >>>Will LTspice begin to handle encrypted models that currently demand >>>Pspice Rev9 or higher? >>> >>>RL >> >>The problem is that every simulator has its own version of >>encryption... LTspice encryptions won't run on PSpice and vice versa. >> >Can't see how that would make much sense. Linear Tech sells ICs, not >LTpice simulator software.
I disagree totally. LT sells LTspice and models (read: support). They charge a pretty penny for it, too.
>I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >Pspice...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:14:26 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:36:48 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: > >>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:47:14 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >><snip> >> >>>>I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >>>>Pspice... >>>> >>>>RL >>> >>>Yes. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>Sorry, I meant version4 of Pspice. >> >>The question is whether encrypted LTmodels will (still?) work on the >>same old and easily available versions of Pspice, or if they, like >>other vendors' encrypted models, need V9 or higher. >> >>RL > >I just tried an encrypted LTspice model (LT3971) on PSpice... nope, >can't read it. > > ...Jim Thompson
Then I think they're just shooting themselves in the foot. If they're going to encrypt, they should remain compatible with the SW packages that the non-encrypted versions ran in. Other semi vendors may encrypt,but it's to run in a 'common' vehicle. Perhaps LT has figured out that there are now more LTspice users than there are Pspice users? A pretty bold move, if so. This would make LTspice the common vehicle, but one that other semi vendors may tend to continue to avoid. I'm pretty sure I've seen ~some vendors models that were specifically listed as LTspice compatible - but off-hand can only see EPC's (GaN), without serious searching. Just issuing non-encrypted pspice models would be enough for everyone to get along.....we already know that behavioral models don't reveal crap about a chip's internal characteristics. RL
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:13:51 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:25:14 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:20:57 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>
<snip>
>>> >>>The problem is that every simulator has its own version of >>>encryption... LTspice encryptions won't run on PSpice and vice versa. >>> >>Can't see how that would make much sense. Linear Tech sells ICs, not >>LTpice simulator software. > >I disagree totally. LT sells LTspice and models (read: support). They >charge a pretty penny for it, too.
Can you be a bit more specific about that statement? No-one at LT has ever denied me support with ICs - and new models seem to be issued fairly frequently, if not exactly on-demand. Cadence doesn't seem to consider model function to be it's responsibility...and they are not historically much use with issues in their own GUI, even after taking your money. RL
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:18:26 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:13:51 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:25:14 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:20:57 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>> ><snip> >>>> >>>>The problem is that every simulator has its own version of >>>>encryption... LTspice encryptions won't run on PSpice and vice versa. >>>> >>>Can't see how that would make much sense. Linear Tech sells ICs, not >>>LTpice simulator software. >> >>I disagree totally. LT sells LTspice and models (read: support). They >>charge a pretty penny for it, too. > >Can you be a bit more specific about that statement?
Their parts cost at least 2x the competition. They justify it with the tools (support). It's great for small customers but I can't afford them.
> >No-one at LT has ever denied me support with ICs - and new models seem >to be issued fairly frequently, if not exactly on-demand.
Exactly. No one at TI has refused to sit down with me and tell me what I did wrong. ;-) On demand.
>Cadence doesn't seem to consider model function to be it's >responsibility...and they are not historically much use with issues in >their own GUI, even after taking your money.
Well, models aren't Cadence responsibility.
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:10:05 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:14:26 -0700, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:36:48 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 07:47:14 -0700, Jim Thompson >>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:01:17 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>><snip> >>> >>>>>I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >>>>>Pspice... >>>>> >>>>>RL >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> >>>Sorry, I meant version4 of Pspice. >>> >>>The question is whether encrypted LTmodels will (still?) work on the >>>same old and easily available versions of Pspice, or if they, like >>>other vendors' encrypted models, need V9 or higher. >>> >>>RL >> >>I just tried an encrypted LTspice model (LT3971) on PSpice... nope, >>can't read it. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Then I think they're just shooting themselves in the foot. > >If they're going to encrypt, they should remain compatible with the SW >packages that the non-encrypted versions ran in. Other semi vendors >may encrypt,but it's to run in a 'common' vehicle. > >Perhaps LT has figured out that there are now more LTspice users than >there are Pspice users? A pretty bold move, if so. > >This would make LTspice the common vehicle, but one that other semi >vendors may tend to continue to avoid. I'm pretty sure I've seen ~some >vendors models that were specifically listed as LTspice compatible - >but off-hand can only see EPC's (GaN), without serious searching. > >Just issuing non-encrypted pspice models would be enough for everyone >to get along.....we already know that behavioral models don't reveal >crap about a chip's internal characteristics. > >RL
It seems to me a really stupid marketing model to make your Spice models not work on any simulator but LTspice !?? But it may provide me with an opportunity to write cross-platform models and charge for it >:-} ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
On 10/30/2015 6:07 AM, John Devereux wrote:
> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> writes: > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:25:14 -0700, Jim Thompson >> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:20:57 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:33:50 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> LTspice heads up... >>>>> >>>>> Latest LTspice sync release over-wrote many text-based subcircuits >>>>> with encrypted versions. >>>>> >>>>> So back up all the text-based ones before they disappear. >>>>> >>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>> >>>> Does Ver4 Pspice run encrypted subcircuits? >>>> >>>> Will LTspice begin to handle encrypted models that currently demand >>>> Pspice Rev9 or higher? >>>> >>>> RL >>> >>> The problem is that every simulator has its own version of >>> encryption... LTspice encryptions won't run on PSpice and vice versa. >>> >> Can't see how that would make much sense. Linear Tech sells ICs, not >> LTpice simulator software. > > They are paranoid about other manufacturers learning the innards of > their parts via the spice models published? > > I think there is a clause in the license about LTSpice not being legal > to use by their competitors or for chip design. > > >> I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >> Pspice... >> >> RL >
Most of them don't own the foundry device models, so they're probably contractually prevented from publishing the real innards. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:31:26 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 10/30/2015 6:07 AM, John Devereux wrote: >> legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> writes: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:25:14 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:20:57 -0400, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:33:50 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> LTspice heads up... >>>>>> >>>>>> Latest LTspice sync release over-wrote many text-based subcircuits >>>>>> with encrypted versions. >>>>>> >>>>>> So back up all the text-based ones before they disappear. >>>>>> >>>>>> ...Jim Thompson >>>>> >>>>> Does Ver4 Pspice run encrypted subcircuits? >>>>> >>>>> Will LTspice begin to handle encrypted models that currently demand >>>>> Pspice Rev9 or higher? >>>>> >>>>> RL >>>> >>>> The problem is that every simulator has its own version of >>>> encryption... LTspice encryptions won't run on PSpice and vice versa. >>>> >>> Can't see how that would make much sense. Linear Tech sells ICs, not >>> LTpice simulator software. >> >> They are paranoid about other manufacturers learning the innards of >> their parts via the spice models published? >> >> I think there is a clause in the license about LTSpice not being legal >> to use by their competitors or for chip design. >> >> >>> I'd assumed that previous unencrypted LTspice models worked on >>> Pspice... >>> >>> RL >> > >Most of them don't own the foundry device models, so they're probably >contractually prevented from publishing the real innards. > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs
Most Spice users wouldn't be happy with device-level models because they would run more slowly. The real problem for users is that the behavioral models created by most chip vendors are real crap and have annoying convergence issues. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.