LTspice, a great program, but that UI!

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:20:24 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:15:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:52:26 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> 
>> >On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 21:47:42 -0700, John Larkin
>> ><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 23:05:33 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:58:33 -0700, John Larkin
>> >>><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:46:37 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:20:41 -0700, John Larkin
>> >>>>><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:15:18 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:42:31 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
>> >>>>>>><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>"John Larkin"  wrote in message 
>> >>>>>>>>news:pi2bcc1mmrc1027fui30jm0p0rr39n4nh8@4ax.com...
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:46:53 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
>> >>>>>>>><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>"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?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>I suspect that part of the motivation and value of the Analog Devices
>> >>>>>>>>>purchase of LTC was LT Spice; a couple of billion dollars worth maybe.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I have to say, no way josa, and ROTFLMAO. :-)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>John. Not a chance in a billion that LTSpice has a business worth even 
>> >>>>>>>>remotely near that value. Its a freebe, so it would be simply impossible to 
>> >>>>>>>>justify it as shareholder value as anything more than dubious "goodwill".
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>*The* fundamental reason companies buy other companies, is to take their 
>> >>>>>>>>*existing customers*, via the *products* that they *sell*. Its because the 
>> >>>>>>>>other company is eating into their markets or markets they want to enter. 
>> >>>>>>>>Its that simple. It has to be hard profit and loss quantifiable motives, 
>> >>>>>>>>that convince investors and shareholders.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I propose that  LTSpice played no part whatsoever in Analog Devices 
>> >>>>>>>>decision. Lets see if Mike pops up to contradict me.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>I would suggest that LTSpice gets LT repsonisble for a huge share of
>> >>>>>>>its high margin business.  It's the way they support smaller companies
>> >>>>>>>(where the margins are higher).  There is no other way to justify
>> >>>>>>>their prices.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>We had a team of LTC folks visit us last Wednesday, partly to tell us
>> >>>>>>about the expected effects of the ADI acquisition. They agreed with me
>> >>>>>>that LT Spice is going to be important to ADI, and that LT Spice has
>> >>>>>>probably sold gigabucks of parts so far.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Some of their parts are good deals. Not gumdrop opamps or regulators,
>> >>>>>>but things like fast ADCs and multi-channel serial DACs.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>We've used thousands of their LTM micro-brick switchers. Nice quiet
>> >>>>>>little things.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Way too expensive.  When we can buy SMPS regulator chips for well less
>> >>>>>than $.50 (and add another $.20 for passives), these sorts of things
>> >>>>>don't hold the interest much.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Expensive" depends on the context. They are small, convenient, and as
>> >>>>I noted, very quiet. Two inches away from a 250 MHz, 12 bit ADC, I
>> >>>>don't want a lot of switching spikes in my ground plane.
>> >>>
>> >>>You've just stated my point about LTSpice, and LT in general.  Great
>> >>>stuff, if you're making tens or hundreds a month.  Not so great if
>> >>>you're making thousands or hundreds of thousands.  TI doesn't give
>> >>>much support for people making tens or hundreds but...
>> >>
>> >>If I post a question to one of the TI forums, somebody generally
>> >>answers it pretty promptly, and usually fairly well. I actually have
>> >>some support contacts at TI, but I think the forums work about as well
>> >>in most cases. My question and answer get googl indexed for the rest
>> >>of the world to see.
>> >>
>> >>Distributor FAEs work for small companies too.
>> >
>> >But you don't have four people dedicated to your business, one of whom
>> >is an excellent power supply designer.  Do they come into Highland and
>> >teach an eight week power design course?  ...and bring lunch?  ;-)
>> 
>> Sometimes they take us out for sushi.
>> 
>> But I don't want a power design course, especially not eight weeks.
>> Even I can get tired of sushi.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>It's a matter of market.  LTSpice allows LT to go after the high
>> >>>margin business, where they want to play.  TI, for instance, has a
>> >>>completely different marketing model.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Sure. We average about 20% overall parts cost compared to selling
>> >>price. Half of that is PC boards and packaging. So I don't worry much
>> >>about parts cost. I do use cheap TI synchronous switchers and external
>> >>Ls and Cs when it's reasonable, and when I have a lot of them on a
>> >>board. 
>> >
>> >Yes, that's *many* times our margin.  A buck matters.
>> >
>> >>On a production run of, say, 50 or 100 pieces, it's good to minimize
>> >>the number of line items on the BOM. Every part has to be loaded into
>> >>feeders and such.
>> >
>> >Sure.  The nuber of feeders is never a concern for our production (it
>> >is for our CM but I never make it under their limit).  The number of
>> >devices matters, of course, because it costs more to place a part than
>> >most parts cost.
>> >
>> >>Hey, I use LT Spice for non-LT sims. UniversalOpamp2 is handy.
>> >
>> >;-) 
>> >
>> >My favorite part is "ideal opamp".
>> 
>> I use "e" for that.
>Yeah when is LT going to release "e" and how much is it? :^)


I like it because it doesn't need a power supply. Must be solar
powered or something.

What the difference between e and e2? Just polarity? The HELP doesn't
say.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:44:27 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

> An engineering product is designed based on technical, objective
> considerations. Not even spending 5 bloody minutes looking for an
> alternative via Google is fantasy. I don't believe for a second that any
> engineer does this. Once alternatives are discovered, an engineer will
> evaluate them to see if they are a better option.

There's more to it than simply finding the cheapest alternative.
A big part of electronic design is minimizing risk, and to do
that I often use LTspice to simulate parts of the circuit.
Sure I look at the alternatives before choosing a part, but
being able to or not able to simulate a circuit is a big factor.
Another factor that sometimes matters a lot is time.

Once LTspice and another free LT tool called FilterCad was very
helpful for our company - we make modules for ANR headsets,
everything was going great until suddenly we started getting a
lot of returns - bad speakers that would pass factory tests but
rattled when our customer assembled them. They were not amused.
Needed to make a speaker tester and fast! To test a speaker
for distortion I needed to output test tones at various
frequencies then filter the output from a sense mic with a
brick-wall high-pass filter set to twice the test frequency.
With FilterCad I typed in my requirements and it spit out a
complicated circuit using a LTC1068. No way I could have
derived all those values on my own with math in the allotted
time let alone test it - I needed a working solution NOW.
LTspice also had this part, so simulated it and found that
I needed to actively drive the bias pin or it leaked lows,
but otherwise the circuit did what I needed to do, just
needed to supply it with a clock that was 100x more than the
pass frequency.. used an ancient 74HC4059 programmable divider
and a FF to turn my fixed clock into a variable clock.

Unfortunately for LT I just needed one chip and a spare
for the factory tester, but it saved us $thousands and
possibly our jobs. If I ever need something like that again
there it is. For the most part I use LTspice to simulate
generic stuff that doesn't need LT parts (unless I want to,
I use bunches of LTC1050 low-offset opamps), but if faced
with something intense like that filter I'll take a design
with a LT part that I can simulate over something untested
any day, even if it costs a bit more. I'm sure LT sells lots
of parts through their free tools - sure it's advertising
but it's also damn useful.

Terry

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

Am 13.03.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Kevin Aylward:
> "Robert Loos"  wrote in message news:vbuhpd-a4d.ln1@baer-gmbh.com...
>
>> There is no need to place wires from pin to pin! Just place a few
>> parts, then draw a wire right through them and when you end the wire
>> (right click or escape)
>
> I just tried that, and it went and connected up incorrectly.
> Ahmmm...probably because I am unable to use LTpPice.

How did you do it? I never had problems here. Works like a charm.

>> all lines that would short a component magically disappear.
>> Also, if you place a component right over a wire, the piece of wire
>> under the component is automatically deleted.
>
> It didn't used to do that. Mike copied that from me :-)

:-)

> But in reality, I hardly ever use that feature

Sometimes, when I have to insert something, I simply drag the block a 
bit away and throw the components in.

>> Frequently used components like resistors, inductors, diodes or ground
>> symbols can be inserted without moving the mouse to a menu by typing
>> r, l, d or g.
>
> So, you don't see the value in having docked, tabbed sidebars that you
> can drag any of the component form any library?

When I hack something into LTSpice, I normally first draw the schematic 
and then set the values for the components. When I need an OpAmp, i hit 
the component button, type op07 and I have it. Don't care from which 
library it comes. Some people may prefer it different.

> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/screenshots.htm
>
> To add model libraries, you just drag drop the file from explorer.
> Symbols for standard models are attached automatically.

cool.

>> Rotate is ctrl-r but mirror is _not_ ctrl-m :-(
>
> There is no rational reason to have the ctrl key as well, SS don't do
> that, its just "r" "m" "f" to rotate, mirror flip up/down. Zoom in/out
> is "i" "o"

"r" is already resistor :-)

> Double-clicking on component does what you expect in windows, as does
> right click popping up a menu :-)

I suppose the original program did not come from the Windows world. It 
is like if you use some 'original Linux' programs that have been ported 
to Windows. Some things drive you crazy when you are not used to it.

Robert

Am 13.03.2017 um 10:46 schrieb rickman:
> On 3/13/2017 3:29 AM, Robert Loos wrote:
...
>
> I've been through the documentation many times and not all of these
> keystrokes were made apparent to me.  Yes, somewhere there is a list of
> all the hotkeys, but mostly they are control keys and weeding through
> the list for the few useful ones is not so easy.

Yes, somewhere in the control panel (the hammer symbol).

> I changed one of the hot keys in the settings so cntl-z was undo as is
> the case in so many windows programs.  It was promptly forgotten...

here it works. Maybe it has been fixed.

> I seem to recall fixing some of the waveform colors so they stood out on
> a laptop LCD screen... all gone.

I remember I have changed some (at least the dark blue, which is hard to 
see on black) and they're still there.

> If you use the program every day, it can become very familiar.  If not,
> the arcane little idiosyncrasies get on your nerves.   Why doesn't
> cntl-A select all the text in a text field???  There's a million things
> like this that the few nice features don't make up for.

I fully agree but I have got used to the ones I need and live with it.
Especially with text fields, every program behaves different. If you 
want a new line, in some you press return, others want ctrl or alt 
return :-(

Robert

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:44:27 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

>>"John Larkin"  wrote in message 
>>news:66sdccpjrn4sgm0dohodvrhlosuuru05hp@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>>And because the LTC people physically told me so last week.
>>
>>>That is some evidence, in the legal sense, but without numbers, and 
>>>reasons
>>>for the numbers, it don't mean what they said was accurate or even the
>>>truth. As I noted, what would you expect them to say. "LTSpice is a total
>>>loss to us".
>>
>>>When I was designing board level stuff, I would evaluate pretty every 
>>>single
>>>semiconductor company for the equivalent part I was planning to design in.
>>>Its part of the process of being an engineer. You are going to try and get
>>>the best compromise of performance, cost and availability. It would be 
>>>just
>>>insane to design in a part just because that was in the kit of your freebe
>>>sim tool. Like, you aren't going to check out any alternatives? This is 
>>>the
>>>real world. I don't believe any competent engineer would do such a daft
>>thing.
>
>>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.  It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative
parts.  

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:44:50 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:44:27 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
><kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>"John Larkin"  wrote in message 
>>>news:66sdccpjrn4sgm0dohodvrhlosuuru05hp@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>>>And because the LTC people physically told me so last week.
>>>
>>>>That is some evidence, in the legal sense, but without numbers, and 
>>>>reasons
>>>>for the numbers, it don't mean what they said was accurate or even the
>>>>truth. As I noted, what would you expect them to say. "LTSpice is a total
>>>>loss to us".
>>>
>>>>When I was designing board level stuff, I would evaluate pretty every 
>>>>single
>>>>semiconductor company for the equivalent part I was planning to design in.
>>>>Its part of the process of being an engineer. You are going to try and get
>>>>the best compromise of performance, cost and availability. It would be 
>>>>just
>>>>insane to design in a part just because that was in the kit of your freebe
>>>>sim tool. Like, you aren't going to check out any alternatives? This is 
>>>>the
>>>>real world. I don't believe any competent engineer would do such a daft
>>>thing.
>>
>>>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.  It's *never* a 30 minute task to evaluate alternative
>parts.  

Well, it might be for passives and simple discretes. But for a
switcher or something, I generally get an eval board and do some
testing... cap load stability, noise, chip temperature rise, all that.
Might take a day.

I usually test opamps, linear regs, things like that.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

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
-- 
| 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.

wrote in message news:lnfecc1jnk23tj5te7jn6ndvofvq4i7d9f@4ax.com...

>>
>>"Expensive" depends on the context. They are small, convenient, and as
>>I noted, very quiet. Two inches away from a 250 MHz, 12 bit ADC, I
>>don't want a lot of switching spikes in my ground plane.
>
>>You've just stated my point about LTSpice, and LT in general.  Great
>>stuff, if you're making tens or hundreds a month.  Not so great if
>>you're making thousands or hundreds of thousands.  TI doesn't give
>>much support for people making tens or hundreds but...
>
>>It's a matter of market.  LTSpice allows LT to go after the high
>>margin business, where they want to play.
>
>>This claim makes no sense. LTSpice is *only* a *simulation* program.  A
>>simulation program can't "allow" them to sell parts.

>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.

Sure, it has *some* value, to include LT models directly, but not a lot, imo

To wit, LTSpice  does not guarantee that it will be uses just for LT parts. 
I wajor, that of the 3,000,00 downloads, only a low % actually use it to buy 
LT parts, and buy other vendors parts instead. Most of those, probably 
decide to go into banking once they finish their B.S. E.E. anyway. That's 
the bit many seem to be missing here.


So, ones needs to know, how many lazy, incompetent, drunk... engineers there 
are that won't do their job and use LTSpice to check out for an optimum 
part, and not be bribed by freebees.

>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

:-)

And no, the only rock star in this NG, is the one in the purple shirt 
playing the blue guitar with cream fingerboard...

http://www.rosierox.com/photos_the_earl_of_derby_cambridge.htm


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

>"John Devereux"  wrote in message news:87tw6wq2ij.fsf@devereux.me.uk...



>Yes that is something of a side issue although for most of the "unique"
>parts can be implemented with something else but may be more complicated
>to design. But for specialist applications where volumes are lower I can
>see the attraction of being able to drop in circuit block and have it
>"just work", and furthermore be able to immediately demonstrate and
>verify that with LTSpice.

But could you really sleep at night, knowing that you didn't even *try* to 
find another part? What if the engineer in the next cubicle decided to do 
so, and then showed to your boss that there was a better and cheaper part?

A key point is that LTSpice runs *any* PSpice/Spice3 model from any vendor, 
so its a pop to the competitions website to download their model and run it 
in LTSpice

The point being, LTSpice does not force, or ensure people use it to buy 
*only* LT parts. Its just a bit more, in your face advertising, and that his 
limited value to people like engineers, who almost invariable evaluate based 
on objective values.

My estimate is that LTSpice is used to buy more of other vendors products, 
then their own. LT parts are expensive.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html