In article <7YKdnZN-tr7j5ljFnZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>, kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk says...> > "M Philbrook" wrote in message > news:MPG.332f37eeea23385398a015@news.eternal-september.org... > > In article <o9veuf$50c$1@dont-email.me>, gnuarm@gmail.com says... > > > > Every time I want to do something with LTspice I have to fight the UI > > something wicked. Doing anything relating to commands is pure torture. > > > >> I eventually figured out how to do what I wanted, but it is amazing how > >> poor not only the UI is, but the documentation. I have learned > >> programming languages by reading the manuals. But I can't decipher the > >> .MEAS statement in LTspice along with many other features. > > > Please be advised, LTspice and those like it are real programs designed > >for serious users in mind looking for real productivity tools for those > >that are PRODUCTIVE. > > Pardon?Did you fart ?> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/worstcase.htm > > LTSpice is a freebee that lacks major key features for productive, > professional use, imo... > > Anyone can piss about and make a one off work. >
LTspice, a great program, but that UI!
Started by ●March 10, 2017
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:43:59 +0000, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> wrote:>On 14/03/2017 17:21, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:03:49 +0100, Robert Loos <1209@baer-gmbh.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Am 13.03.2017 um 18:00 schrieb Jim Thompson: >>>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:29:22 +0100, Robert Loos <1209@baer-gmbh.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> May be it looks a little bit home made and uses odd shortcuts but it has >>>>> one feature that makes entering schematics as fast as no second program >>>>> I know: >>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> Robert >>>> >>>> Monumental BS. >>>> >>>> I invite anyone who thinks that the LTspice GUI is "as fast as no >>>> second program I know" to drop by, if you're in the East Valley area >>>> of the Phoenix 'burbs, and see a demonstration of a real schematic >>>> capture. >>> >>> I'm afraid I won't be in that area in the near future. >>> I don't know MicroSim. But I know some other more or less expensive >>> professional software... This video about OrCad for example >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZUPBLNuaHk >>> is surely not optimized for speed but it shows major lacks in OrCad. >>> You must draw every wire one by one, exactly hit the pins and sometimes >>> OrCad ends the wire in free air (2:32). That's what I call BS. >>> In LTSpice I would just place the components and draw a closed wire loop >>> through all of them and they are connected. Definitely faster. >>> And inserting the Switch (3:03), he has to delete the wire, place the >>> switch and draw another wire. I would just drop the switch over the wire >>> and it is connected. >>> >>>> >>>> Bring your laptop. >>>> >>>> At that time we'll locate a mutually acceptable schematic image off >>>> the web, you can enter it in LTspice, I'll enter with MicroSim PSpice >>>> Schematics... you'll get your ass whipped >:-} >>> >>> not sure about that :-). Can you explain how MicroSim makes it faster? >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> P.S. just for fun, I tried an astable multivibrator. Can you beat 1:32? >>> >>> Version 4 >>> SHEET 1 880 680 >>> WIRE -112 -96 -272 -96 >>> WIRE 32 -96 -112 -96 >>> WIRE 208 -96 32 -96 >>> WIRE 320 -96 208 -96 >>> WIRE -112 -48 -112 -96 >>> WIRE 32 -48 32 -96 >>> WIRE 208 -48 208 -96 >>> WIRE 320 -48 320 -96 >>> WIRE -272 48 -272 -96 >>> WIRE -112 80 -112 32 >>> WIRE -64 80 -112 80 >>> WIRE 32 80 32 32 >>> WIRE 32 80 0 80 >>> WIRE 80 80 32 80 >>> WIRE 208 80 208 32 >>> WIRE 208 80 160 80 >>> WIRE 224 80 208 80 >>> WIRE 320 80 320 32 >>> WIRE 320 80 288 80 >>> WIRE -112 112 -112 80 >>> WIRE 320 112 320 80 >>> WIRE 80 160 160 80 >>> WIRE 80 160 -48 160 >>> WIRE 160 160 80 80 >>> WIRE 256 160 160 160 >>> WIRE -272 272 -272 128 >>> WIRE -112 272 -112 208 >>> WIRE -112 272 -272 272 >>> WIRE 320 272 320 208 >>> WIRE 320 272 -112 272 >>> WIRE -112 288 -112 272 >>> FLAG -112 288 0 >>> SYMBOL npn 256 112 R0 >>> SYMATTR InstName Q1 >>> SYMATTR Value BC847A >>> SYMBOL npn -48 112 M0 >>> SYMATTR InstName Q2 >>> SYMATTR Value BC847A >>> SYMBOL res -128 -64 R0 >>> SYMATTR InstName R1 >>> SYMATTR Value 1k >>> SYMBOL res 16 -64 R0 >>> SYMATTR InstName R2 >>> SYMATTR Value 47k >>> SYMBOL res 304 -64 R0 >>> SYMATTR InstName R3 >>> SYMATTR Value 1k >>> SYMBOL res 192 -64 R0 >>> SYMATTR InstName R4 >>> SYMATTR Value 47k >>> SYMBOL cap 0 64 R90 >>> WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2 >>> WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2 >>> SYMATTR InstName C1 >>> SYMATTR Value 100n >>> SYMBOL cap 288 64 R90 >>> WINDOW 0 0 32 VBottom 2 >>> WINDOW 3 32 32 VTop 2 >>> SYMATTR InstName C2 >>> SYMATTR Value 100n >>> SYMBOL voltage -272 32 R0 >>> SYMATTR InstName V1 >>> SYMATTR Value 5 >>> TEXT -306 312 Left 2 !.tran 100m startup uic >>> TEXT 432 -48 Left 2 ;1:32 draw the schematic (including values) >>> TEXT 432 -16 Left 2 ;1:47 Simulation on screen >> >> MicroSim created the original PSpice. You're looking at what OrCAD >> could do to f..k it up. >> >> When OrCAD came along and bought out MicroSim I refused to play along >> and switch to OrCAD Crapture. >> >> Fortunately, so did many others. So even up into many years after the >> Cadence acquisition, MicroSim PSpice Schematics was "supported". >> >> But "support" was a joke. Cadence was systematically removing >> features. Fortunately PSpice has always been .INI file based. So an >> engineer at ON Semi and I colluded and dug back thru our archives and >> restored the original .INI >> >> Support was a joke, nothing was being improved at each maintenance >> update, so I quit paying maintenance at v15.7.0.p001 >> >> Fortunately I had, long ago, been provided a blanket license, since I >> had been one of the main antagonists over the years, finding all the >> bugs and quirks, and causing features to be added that suited my IC >> design needs. >> >> After an initial purchase of $8,000 in 1987 and maintenance over the >> years, I've got about $40K invested. >> >> It's been a good investment... I've designed at least 60 chips with >> it, everyone of which came straight out working to spec. >> >> (Though I've got to admit I probably have around 80 chip designs with >> almost as good a success rate that were done before CAD ;-) >> >> I won't bother duplicating your example... I want a live competitor... >> I love to watch "mouthers" sweat >:-} >> >> ...Jim Thompson >> > >There was nothing wrong with the OrCAD DOS products - it's hard to think >how the SDT and PCB products could be improved upon. When they moved to >Windows - different story. >Yep, I actually liked SDT, then there came Crapture >:-} ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 23:03:11 +0000, JM <dontreplytothis173@gmail.com> wrote:>On 14/03/2017 20:31, Kevin Aylward wrote: >>> wrote in message news:1e7gccp4r9ghq2gqo8krk6vlr34lnbsjd9@4ax.com... >> >> >>> >>>> Engineering is expensive. Risk can be expensive. Performance can be >>>> valuable. Getting a product to market matters. There's more to >>>> engineering than minimizing the BOM cost. >>> >>> Sure, but one needs to step back a bit here, and examine reality. >>> >>> Are you really claiming that a competent engineer is not even going to >>> spend 30 mins on the web. Like *30 min* out of months of development >>> costs, >>> simply to check out if another suitable part might even exist? >> >>> Strawman. >> >> Not at all >> >>> It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative >>> parts. >> >> That is not the point. What part of "check out" and "exists" did you miss? >> >> The only reason any competent engineer, that is designing for major >> production runs, is not going to the most basic of "does anther part >> even exist", is if he has no idea that an alternative might exist. i.e. >> he was a clueless engineer. Dah..Gee,. looks like I have to go with >> this..dah... >> >> What I can say, is that if I were hiring engineers, hiring an engineer >> that is bribed by a freebe bit of kit from a vendor, such that he wont >> even attempt to find a more optimum part, would not be at the top of my >> resume list. >> >> -- Kevin Aylward >> http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice >> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html > >Kevin, you might be surprised at the number of analogue engineers who >design by stitching together application notes. I would say it's the >great majority. I never really appreciated the fact until I went >freelance and was exposed to dozens of design teams, but the reality is >that only a low percentage of the engineers doing board and system level >design are competent in their craft.Boy, ain't that the truth! I don't know how many projects I've lost, saying, "You're not listening, so I'm outta here."> >What I usually see is that if an engineer manages to cobble together >something in LtSpice (usually from the supplied examples) that meets the >technical specs of whatever it is they've been tasked to do, then the >design stage is over. >My personal burn is they come to me with a board heavily populated by OpAmps everywhere, and want me to simply put it all on a chip. When I ask for an overall system spec, they get all grousey. It's hard for me to convince these dorks that an OpAmp function, on-chip, can often be replaced with a couple of transistors... if any are needed at all. Some of those very dorks lurk here >:-} ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:38:10 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:>On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:32:32 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" ><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > > >>If a simulator does not directly support worst case analyses, its dead in >>the water as far as IC design in concerned. Period. > >What your narcissistic personality disorder will not let you >acknowledge is that, perhaps with one or two exceptions, nobody here >gives a flying fatal f**k what you do or what it takes to design ICs. > >We real engineers, you know, the ones who design products that sell >and make the company profitable, especially people like myself and the >other John who owns the company, buy parts based on data sheet specs, >design circuits, sim parts of the circuit that are questionable and >then spin board that work first time in most cases. We couldn't care >less what goes on inside the epoxy. > >John >John DeArmond >http://www.neon-john.com >http://www.tnduction.com >Tellico Plains, Occupied TN >See website for email addressWe call people who think like you "Blue Wire Queens" >:-} Chips generally aren't tweakable... they either work, or they don't. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
Reply by ●March 14, 20172017-03-14
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:26:44 -0700 (PDT), "John Miles, KE5FX" <jmiles@gmail.com> wrote:>On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 10:26:48 AM UTC-7, Kevin Aylward wrote: >> >> So, no, I don't believe that LTSpice makes much of a difference in sales. > >It's not a sales tool, IMO, but a support tool. Imagine that your job is to >answer the phone when people call with questions about one of your company's >hundreds of SMPS controllers. Being able to say "Send us a simulation" >or "Check out this example" has got to be more or less priceless. > >That'll be why they originally called it "SwitcherCAD." It wasn't originally >meant to model opamps and 6L6s and stuff. > >-- john, KE5FXMost of the parts pages on the LT site have example LT Spice sims that you can download and run instantly, and then modify for your application. Of course, you have to beautify them, too. They are usually very ugly. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●March 15, 20172017-03-15
On 03/14/2017 05:10 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:05:35 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:28:57 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" >> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> wrote in message news:lnfecc1jnk23tj5te7jn6ndvofvq4i7d9f@4ax.com... >> >> [snip] >>> >>>> Nonsense. They sell parts because they've made it easy for customers >>>> to design their parts in. >>> >>> Nonsense. It is hardly any more work for a competent engineer to go and >>> get a model from a competitor, and *also* simulate it LTSpice. >>> >> [snip] >> >> Therein lies the rub... every frickin' manufacturer is heading toward >> encrypted models that only run on their own version of simulator, or, >> like Microchip, have PhD monkeys rolling out models using tables or IF >> statements that hardly ever converge. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > They probably have the notion that they'll lock you into using only their > parts. > > For me, it's more that they drive me away from using their parts, but > hey, I'm a known weirdo. >The LT switcher models are very good, in my limited experience. Mike says that that's because they're real transistor-level models and so have to be encrypted. (I try to use LM2594s for everything, myself. No modelling required.) ;) SPICE IC models are sufficiently crappy that if I'm relying on them for anything delicate I have to breadboard anyway. Discrete circuitry is the only place I'm prepared to actually trust it at all. 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
Reply by ●March 15, 20172017-03-15
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 7:03:06 PM UTC-4, JM wrote:> On 14/03/2017 20:31, Kevin Aylward wrote: > >> wrote in message news:1e7gccp4r9ghq2gqo8krk6vlr34lnbsjd9@4ax.com... > > > > > >> > >>> Engineering is expensive. Risk can be expensive. Performance can be > >>> valuable. Getting a product to market matters. There's more to > >>> engineering than minimizing the BOM cost. > >> > >> Sure, but one needs to step back a bit here, and examine reality. > >> > >> Are you really claiming that a competent engineer is not even going to > >> spend 30 mins on the web. Like *30 min* out of months of development > >> costs, > >> simply to check out if another suitable part might even exist? > > > >> Strawman. > > > > Not at all > > > >> It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative > >> parts. > > > > That is not the point. What part of "check out" and "exists" did you miss? > > > > The only reason any competent engineer, that is designing for major > > production runs, is not going to the most basic of "does anther part > > even exist", is if he has no idea that an alternative might exist. i.e. > > he was a clueless engineer. Dah..Gee,. looks like I have to go with > > this..dah... > > > > What I can say, is that if I were hiring engineers, hiring an engineer > > that is bribed by a freebe bit of kit from a vendor, such that he wont > > even attempt to find a more optimum part, would not be at the top of my > > resume list. > > > > -- Kevin Aylward > > http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice > > http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html > > Kevin, you might be surprised at the number of analogue engineers who > design by stitching together application notes. I would say it's the > great majority. I never really appreciated the fact until I went > freelance and was exposed to dozens of design teams, but the reality is > that only a low percentage of the engineers doing board and system level > design are competent in their craft.Grin, raises hand. App notes or circuits ripped out of AoE. (Probably more of the later... do they even make good app notes any more?) George H.> > What I usually see is that if an engineer manages to cobble together > something in LtSpice (usually from the supplied examples) that meets the > technical specs of whatever it is they've been tasked to do, then the > design stage is over.
Reply by ●March 15, 20172017-03-15
"Neon John" wrote in message news:im2hcctksu3tsojhci2k4q6hi06tqhdton@4ax.com... On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:32:32 -0000, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:>If a simulator does not directly support worst case analyses, its dead in >the water as far as IC design in concerned. Period.>What your narcissistic personality disorder will not let you >acknowledge is that, perhaps with one or two exceptions, nobody here >gives a flying fatal f**k what you do or what it takes to design ICs.Actually, I believe quite a few are interested in IC design. This is an electronics NG, for people interested in electronics. There was at least one post, that indicated very positively on having a description of what is involved in IC design. Its specialised knowledge, that you don't gain unless being involved in it. Furthermore, I made it very clear that I was specifically making comments as applied to IC design. I am well aware requirements for board level design are different. I was a board designer for 15 years.>We real engineers, you know, the ones who design products that sellI hear the trumpet blowing... -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
Reply by ●March 15, 20172017-03-15
"John Larkin" wrote in message news:gf4hcc10gnlgtq23lja7t9ps18jm4h2o9k@4ax.com... he hasn't already searched).>> >>What I can say, is that if I were hiring engineers, hiring an engineer >>that >>is bribed by a freebe bit of kit from a vendor, such that he wont even >>attempt to find a more optimum part, would not be at the top of my resume >>>list. > >>For a prduction run of a hundred units? Please!>Spend a couple of days to save $50!Dah.... So, LT gets $50 bucks. Point proven. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
Reply by ●March 15, 20172017-03-15
"John Larkin" wrote in message news:ielgccl18cg0o46s0js1k7aome7e127kf3@4ax.com...>>you're jealous of >>Mike's rock star status but do try to keep it reasonable. ;-) > >In this world of 7 billion people, Mike is a big a nobody as anyone of us. > >Interestingly I just tried in Google: > >"spice" "kevin aylward" 4,180 hits > >"spice" "mike engelhart" 1080 hits>Super Spice 53,000,000 hits, but not about circuit simulators.>LT Spice 747,000 hits, but on topic.The point was about who was the biggest rock star, Mike or Me, not Spice. The spice bit was just a filter to avoid counting that Newfoundland minister... I wasn't aware mike played guitar at all, if he does, he's probably shit :-) -- Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html
