On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 9:32:28 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:> olaf wrote: > > > Ricketty C wrote: > > > > > Bleech! Every time I try to use LTspice it's like Lucy snagging > > > the football away from Charlie Brown. And just like Charlie, I > > > keep coming back. > > > > Of course, that is true. But LT-Spice is a tool written by an > > enginer for other enginers and we all have a personality like > > Lucy. > > > > If it was written by salesdruids it would look nice and cool > > without any good functionality. I this case you are the football > > on the ground. > > Why didn't Charlie just kick Lucy? > The next time... "I promise I won't kick you this time, Lucy..."Now that wouldn't be Charlie Brown, would it? I think you didn't get Charles Schulz. -- Rick C. --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
LTspice is a difficult tool to make useful
Started by ●May 28, 2020
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:> The fact that you can count on their models working with their > simulator is an incentive to use their parts. Even if it is a small > incentive, it likely pays dividends since the cost of maintaining it > is not large. They also need something for internal use.Sometimes the FAE from TI looks a little bit sad when I told them it is hard to think about there parts because I can not test them in LT-Spice. :-D Olaf
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 11:13:06 AM UTC+10, bitrex wrote:> On 5/28/2020 8:48 PM, Ricketty C wrote: > > On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 8:41:22 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: > >> On 5/28/2020 12:24 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >>> On Thu, 28 May 2020 18:09:06 +0200, olaf <olaf@criseis.ruhr.de> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Bleech! Every time I try to use LTspice it's like Lucy snagging the > >>>>> football away from Charlie Brown. And just like Charlie, I keep > >>>>> coming back. > >>>> > >>>> Of course, that is true. But LT-Spice is a tool written by an enginer > >>>> for other enginers and we all have a personality like Lucy. > >>> > >>> There's a video interview with Mike, the inventor of LT Spice, where > >>> he says that the real value of a circuit simulator is to "cultivate > >>> your intuition." > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU > >>> > >>> I think he is a bit wrong about some other points, but the instinct > >>> training thing is very real. > >>> > >>> I have got people started using LT Spice in literally 5 minutes. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> If it was written by salesdruids it would look nice and cool without > >>>> any good functionality. I this case you are the football on the ground. > >>>> > >>>> It is an interesting question how it will change now with > >>>> Analog. Perhaps it is a good idea to save a working copy for future > >>>> use.... > >>> > >>> I hope Analog doesn't wreck it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Aside from a few niggles LTSpice is pretty much fine the way it is. It > >> offer a lot of flexibility and it's fast. > >> > >> Importing 3rd party models is a bit clunky but not egregiously so. If > >> you have a PSpice model for anything you more or less have an LTSpice > >> model. for a free product that's mostly aimed at Analog/LT's products > >> that's pretty nice. They could have been dicks and locked out everything > >> that's not a discrete or their own products thankfully they didn't do that. > >> > >> I'll try not to give them any ideas. > > > > If they did that they would loose all popularity. Who cares about yet another proprietary simulation tool? I could see ADI saying they don't want to support it anymore.. no, not even that. The fact that you can count on their models working with their simulator is an incentive to use their parts. Even if it is a small incentive, it likely pays dividends since the cost of maintaining it is not large. They also need something for internal use. > > > > Yeah you'd think that but my impression of ADI is they are a top-down > stogy old-fashioned New England-type of technology company. They're like > the IBM of chip-makers. They have their solids in the > aerospace/defense/medical sector. If that's not you and you're not > looking at quantities of a mil they aren't much interested. How much do > they care if some simulation tool they inherited is "popular"Not my impression - at least not back in the late 1980's. Cambridge Instruments wasn't a big customer. We made perhaps one to two hundred machines a year, but those machines did use quite a few relatively expensive Analog Device parts, so we got pretty good attention. When Barry Gilbert was being taken around the European customer base, we got to talk to him. They did concentrate on expensive high performance parts for niche markets, and supporting LTSpice would be part of the service that kept those customers on side. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
On Fri, 29 May 2020 06:24:11 +0200, olaf <olaf@criseis.ruhr.de> wrote:>Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The fact that you can count on their models working with their >> simulator is an incentive to use their parts. Even if it is a small >> incentive, it likely pays dividends since the cost of maintaining it >> is not large. They also need something for internal use. > >Sometimes the FAE from TI looks a little bit sad when I told them it is >hard to think about there parts because I can not test them in LT-Spice. :-D > >OlafOne of my guys can actually run Tina in an emergency. I've never seen WeBench work. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc Science teaches us to doubt. Claude Bernard
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
I'm sure Charles Schultz considered the possibility. Likely it was an underlying thought that contributed to the tense situation. -- Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4b61:: with SMTP id m1mr6582555qvx.235.1590723004510; Thu, 28 May 2020 20:30:04 -0700 (PDT) > X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5301:: with SMTP id t1mr4710970qtn.310.1590723004322; Thu, 28 May 2020 20:30:04 -0700 (PDT) > Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:30:04 -0700 (PDT) > In-Reply-To: <rapon7$4pa$1@dont-email.me> > Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.33.172.5; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b > NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.33.172.5 > References: <d037cdee-023e-4706-b463-0b377549c947@googlegroups.com> <2a45qg-nqr.ln1@criseis.ruhr.de> <rapon7$4pa$1@dont-email.me> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Message-ID: <492a71ca-58bc-4220-82bd-867fff9e2ea6@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: LTspice is a difficult tool to make useful > From: Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> > Injection-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 03:30:04 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:596760 > > On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 9:32:28 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote: >> olaf wrote: >> >> > Ricketty C wrote: >> > >> > > Bleech! Every time I try to use LTspice it's like Lucy snagging >> > > the football away from Charlie Brown. And just like Charlie, I >> > > keep coming back. >> > >> > Of course, that is true. But LT-Spice is a tool written by an >> > enginer for other enginers and we all have a personality like >> > Lucy. >> > >> > If it was written by salesdruids it would look nice and cool >> > without any good functionality. I this case you are the football >> > on the ground. >> >> Why didn't Charlie just kick Lucy? >> The next time... "I promise I won't kick you this time, Lucy..." > > Now that wouldn't be Charlie Brown, would it? > > I think you didn't get Charles Schulz. > > -- > > Rick C. > > --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging > --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209 > >
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
On 29/05/2020 10:48, Ricketty C wrote:> On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 8:41:22 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> On 5/28/2020 12:24 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 28 May 2020 18:09:06 +0200, olaf <olaf@criseis.ruhr.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bleech! Every time I try to use LTspice it's like Lucy snagging the >>>>> football away from Charlie Brown. And just like Charlie, I keep >>>>> coming back. >>>> >>>> Of course, that is true. But LT-Spice is a tool written by an enginer >>>> for other enginers and we all have a personality like Lucy. >>> >>> There's a video interview with Mike, the inventor of LT Spice, where >>> he says that the real value of a circuit simulator is to "cultivate >>> your intuition." >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU >>> >>> I think he is a bit wrong about some other points, but the instinct >>> training thing is very real. >>> >>> I have got people started using LT Spice in literally 5 minutes. >>> >>>> >>>> If it was written by salesdruids it would look nice and cool without >>>> any good functionality. I this case you are the football on the ground. >>>> >>>> It is an interesting question how it will change now with >>>> Analog. Perhaps it is a good idea to save a working copy for future >>>> use.... >>> >>> I hope Analog doesn't wreck it. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Aside from a few niggles LTSpice is pretty much fine the way it is. It >> offer a lot of flexibility and it's fast. >> >> Importing 3rd party models is a bit clunky but not egregiously so. If >> you have a PSpice model for anything you more or less have an LTSpice >> model. for a free product that's mostly aimed at Analog/LT's products >> that's pretty nice. They could have been dicks and locked out everything >> that's not a discrete or their own products thankfully they didn't do that. >> >> I'll try not to give them any ideas. > > If they did that they would loose all popularity. Who cares about yet another proprietary simulation tool? I could see ADI saying they don't want to support it anymore.. no, not even that. The fact that you can count on their models working with their simulator is an incentive to use their parts. Even if it is a small incentive, it likely pays dividends since the cost of maintaining it is not large. They also need something for internal use. >They had/have ADICE for internal use (this is public knowledge as googling will confirm). It is far, far better than the publically available version of LTSpice, and I cannot imagine that the former LT did not also have something better for internal use, though perhaps this was just paid-for Spectre licences. Now if you could just convince them to make ADICE available to the public...
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
On 29/05/2020 12:38, Chris Jones wrote: snip> They had/have ADICE for internal use (this is public knowledge as > googling will confirm). It is far, far better than the publically > available version of LTSpice, and I cannot imagine that the former LT > did not also have something better for internal use, though perhaps this > was just paid-for Spectre licences. > > Now if you could just convince them to make ADICE available to the > public...At his lectures Mike Engelhardt said that LT used LTSpice internally - I have no reason to doubt him. MK
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
On 5/29/2020 1:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 11:13:06 AM UTC+10, bitrex wrote: >> On 5/28/2020 8:48 PM, Ricketty C wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 8:41:22 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 5/28/2020 12:24 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2020 18:09:06 +0200, olaf <olaf@criseis.ruhr.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bleech! Every time I try to use LTspice it's like Lucy snagging the >>>>>>> football away from Charlie Brown. And just like Charlie, I keep >>>>>>> coming back. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, that is true. But LT-Spice is a tool written by an enginer >>>>>> for other enginers and we all have a personality like Lucy. >>>>> >>>>> There's a video interview with Mike, the inventor of LT Spice, where >>>>> he says that the real value of a circuit simulator is to "cultivate >>>>> your intuition." >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU >>>>> >>>>> I think he is a bit wrong about some other points, but the instinct >>>>> training thing is very real. >>>>> >>>>> I have got people started using LT Spice in literally 5 minutes. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If it was written by salesdruids it would look nice and cool without >>>>>> any good functionality. I this case you are the football on the ground. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is an interesting question how it will change now with >>>>>> Analog. Perhaps it is a good idea to save a working copy for future >>>>>> use.... >>>>> >>>>> I hope Analog doesn't wreck it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Aside from a few niggles LTSpice is pretty much fine the way it is. It >>>> offer a lot of flexibility and it's fast. >>>> >>>> Importing 3rd party models is a bit clunky but not egregiously so. If >>>> you have a PSpice model for anything you more or less have an LTSpice >>>> model. for a free product that's mostly aimed at Analog/LT's products >>>> that's pretty nice. They could have been dicks and locked out everything >>>> that's not a discrete or their own products thankfully they didn't do that. >>>> >>>> I'll try not to give them any ideas. >>> >>> If they did that they would loose all popularity. Who cares about yet another proprietary simulation tool? I could see ADI saying they don't want to support it anymore.. no, not even that. The fact that you can count on their models working with their simulator is an incentive to use their parts. Even if it is a small incentive, it likely pays dividends since the cost of maintaining it is not large. They also need something for internal use. >>> >> >> Yeah you'd think that but my impression of ADI is they are a top-down >> stogy old-fashioned New England-type of technology company. They're like >> the IBM of chip-makers. They have their solids in the >> aerospace/defense/medical sector. If that's not you and you're not >> looking at quantities of a mil they aren't much interested. How much do >> they care if some simulation tool they inherited is "popular" > > Not my impression - at least not back in the late 1980's. Cambridge Instruments wasn't a big customer. We made perhaps one to two hundred machines a year, but those machines did use quite a few relatively expensive Analog Device parts, so we got pretty good attention. > > When Barry Gilbert was being taken around the European customer base, we got to talk to him. They did concentrate on expensive high performance parts for niche markets, and supporting LTSpice would be part of the service that kept those customers on side. >I ordered several samples from them of some chips a while back, for a $5 billion company their sample policy is pretty stingy, two of any part and max four parts per request per month or somesuch unless you're a somebody. They didn't have any stock in the US. and the samples never showed up. /shrug
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
On 5/29/2020 1:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 11:13:06 AM UTC+10, bitrex wrote: >> On 5/28/2020 8:48 PM, Ricketty C wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 8:41:22 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 5/28/2020 12:24 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2020 18:09:06 +0200, olaf <olaf@criseis.ruhr.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Bleech! Every time I try to use LTspice it's like Lucy snagging the >>>>>>> football away from Charlie Brown. And just like Charlie, I keep >>>>>>> coming back. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, that is true. But LT-Spice is a tool written by an enginer >>>>>> for other enginers and we all have a personality like Lucy. >>>>> >>>>> There's a video interview with Mike, the inventor of LT Spice, where >>>>> he says that the real value of a circuit simulator is to "cultivate >>>>> your intuition." >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU >>>>> >>>>> I think he is a bit wrong about some other points, but the instinct >>>>> training thing is very real. >>>>> >>>>> I have got people started using LT Spice in literally 5 minutes. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If it was written by salesdruids it would look nice and cool without >>>>>> any good functionality. I this case you are the football on the ground. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is an interesting question how it will change now with >>>>>> Analog. Perhaps it is a good idea to save a working copy for future >>>>>> use.... >>>>> >>>>> I hope Analog doesn't wreck it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Aside from a few niggles LTSpice is pretty much fine the way it is. It >>>> offer a lot of flexibility and it's fast. >>>> >>>> Importing 3rd party models is a bit clunky but not egregiously so. If >>>> you have a PSpice model for anything you more or less have an LTSpice >>>> model. for a free product that's mostly aimed at Analog/LT's products >>>> that's pretty nice. They could have been dicks and locked out everything >>>> that's not a discrete or their own products thankfully they didn't do that. >>>> >>>> I'll try not to give them any ideas. >>> >>> If they did that they would loose all popularity. Who cares about yet another proprietary simulation tool? I could see ADI saying they don't want to support it anymore.. no, not even that. The fact that you can count on their models working with their simulator is an incentive to use their parts. Even if it is a small incentive, it likely pays dividends since the cost of maintaining it is not large. They also need something for internal use. >>> >> >> Yeah you'd think that but my impression of ADI is they are a top-down >> stogy old-fashioned New England-type of technology company. They're like >> the IBM of chip-makers. They have their solids in the >> aerospace/defense/medical sector. If that's not you and you're not >> looking at quantities of a mil they aren't much interested. How much do >> they care if some simulation tool they inherited is "popular" > > Not my impression - at least not back in the late 1980's. Cambridge Instruments wasn't a big customer. We made perhaps one to two hundred machines a year, but those machines did use quite a few relatively expensive Analog Device parts, so we got pretty good attention. > > When Barry Gilbert was being taken around the European customer base, we got to talk to him. They did concentrate on expensive high performance parts for niche markets, and supporting LTSpice would be part of the service that kept those customers on side. >Yeah, the same lead engineers who were designing the chips in 1989 are still in the same positions running the show in 2020 is what a number of the GlassDoor reviews for the US-based operation say. No place for new talent
Reply by ●May 29, 20202020-05-29
On 5/29/2020 11:28 AM, bitrex wrote:> On 5/29/2020 1:09 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 11:13:06 AM UTC+10, bitrex wrote: >>> On 5/28/2020 8:48 PM, Ricketty C wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 8:41:22 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>>> On 5/28/2020 12:24 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2020 18:09:06 +0200, olaf <olaf@criseis.ruhr.de> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ricketty C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bleech! Every time I try to use LTspice it's like Lucy snagging >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> football away from Charlie Brown. And just like Charlie, I keep >>>>>>>> coming back. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, that is true. But LT-Spice is a tool written by an >>>>>>> enginer >>>>>>> for other enginers and we all have a personality like Lucy. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a video interview with Mike, the inventor of LT Spice, where >>>>>> he says that the real value of a circuit simulator is to "cultivate >>>>>> your intuition." >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TrbD7-IwU >>>>>> >>>>>> I think he is a bit wrong about some other points, but the instinct >>>>>> training thing is very real. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have got people started using LT Spice in literally 5 minutes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it was written by salesdruids it would look nice and cool without >>>>>>> any good functionality. I this case you are the football on the >>>>>>> ground. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is an interesting question how it will change now with >>>>>>> Analog. Perhaps it is a good idea to save a working copy for future >>>>>>> use.... >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope Analog doesn't wreck it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Aside from a few niggles LTSpice is pretty much fine the way it is. It >>>>> offer a lot of flexibility and it's fast. >>>>> >>>>> Importing 3rd party models is a bit clunky but not egregiously so. If >>>>> you have a PSpice model for anything you more or less have an LTSpice >>>>> model. for a free product that's mostly aimed at Analog/LT's products >>>>> that's pretty nice. They could have been dicks and locked out >>>>> everything >>>>> that's not a discrete or their own products thankfully they didn't >>>>> do that. >>>>> >>>>> I'll try not to give them any ideas. >>>> >>>> If they did that they would loose all popularity. Who cares about >>>> yet another proprietary simulation tool? I could see ADI saying >>>> they don't want to support it anymore.. no, not even that. The fact >>>> that you can count on their models working with their simulator is >>>> an incentive to use their parts. Even if it is a small incentive, >>>> it likely pays dividends since the cost of maintaining it is not >>>> large. They also need something for internal use. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah you'd think that but my impression of ADI is they are a top-down >>> stogy old-fashioned New England-type of technology company. They're like >>> the IBM of chip-makers. They have their solids in the >>> aerospace/defense/medical sector. If that's not you and you're not >>> looking at quantities of a mil they aren't much interested. How much do >>> they care if some simulation tool they inherited is "popular" >> >> Not my impression - at least not back in the late 1980's. Cambridge >> Instruments wasn't a big customer. We made perhaps one to two hundred >> machines a year, but those machines did use quite a few relatively >> expensive Analog Device parts, so we got pretty good attention. >> >> When Barry Gilbert was being taken around the European customer base, >> we got to talk to him. They did concentrate on expensive high >> performance parts for niche markets, and supporting LTSpice would be >> part of the service that kept those customers on side. >> > > Yeah, the same lead engineers who were designing the chips in 1989 are > still in the same positions running the show in 2020 is what a number of > the GlassDoor reviews for the US-based operation say. No place for new > talentIt's a reason I can think of why they're still in the Rte 128 "technology corridor" after the hardware tech and computer sector died here ages ago and didn't pack up for Silicon Valley. All the required people to do the main US-based design work live in the area and have had a house down the street since 1975. There's not a large pool of talent to draw from for senior engineers in this area and you don't need to.
