On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 14:34:33 -0500, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>On 2023-03-08 12:59, John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:23:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> On 2023-03-08 10:47, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:15:32 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> A bunch of my stuff wouldn't budge off the peg with those >>>>> settings. If you already know what it should look like, why >>>>> simulate? >>>> >>>> To play with ideas fast day or night, and to get the parts >>>> values right. >>> >>> I've been known to dork frequency compensation that way too, and to >>> look at tolerances for filters. >> >> Right. Any interesting control loop is nonlinear. >> >>> >>> The last thing I designed by poking at in SPICE was a collapsible >>> BJT cascode, where the top transistor had to take a bunch of >>> voltage. When the bottom transistor turned on, the top one >>> saturated, pulling down its relatively high-Z base bias string, so >>> the low level was just the sum of the V_CE(sat)s. >>> >>> I knew that part would work, but needed to figure out what the >>> turn-off transient would look like. The answer was, "Nothing too >>> pretty, but good enough for government work." It didn't look like >>> the top transistor would reliably come out of saturation fast >>> enough to avoid blowing up the bottom one, but a zener on its base >>> solved that. >>> >>>> It's often easier to sim, say, a voltage divider than to do a lot >>>> of math. >>> >>> Our ideas of "a lot of math" are a bit different, but doing that is >>> no worse than using a calculator. ;) (I try to keep in practice >>> doing mental arithmetic, because it makes me a much better >>> troubleshooter.) >> >> A non-trivial voltage divider, with more than two resistors, can be >> a pain to work out with a calculator, especially using the parts you >> already have in stock. >> >> And Spice sims, with comments, are easy to save in a design notes >> folder. > >Yup. They go in our git repos too (one repo per project). > >> >> I do a lot of mental arithmetic, but it's analog computing, >> guesswork and not manipulating digits in my head. I usually come in >> around 5 or 10% accuracy, which is handy enough in most cases. > > >I like to make it a game. It's memory more than anything--in 1 Hz, 3 uA >of photocurrent has 1 pA shot noise; for Johnson, 60.4 ohms has 1 nV and > 16k has 1 pA. > >Going up and down decibels is fun too: 1 dB is 12% voltage and 25% >power, pi = 10 dB (voltage), and so 2 pi = 16 dB. A noise contribution >that's 6 dB down raises the floor by 1 dB, and it goes down linearly (in >dB) for lower noise. > >> Doing this at a whiteboard, in a meeting, seems to annoy some people. >> This used to be called "Lightning Empiricism"; see Williams 1991. > >Whiteboards are great fun, when combined with an interesting problem and >one-to-three smart and good-natured colleagues. (And possibly a pitcher >of beer.) >Heresy. Whiteboards run on chocolate.
LTSpice UI
Started by ●March 2, 2023
Reply by ●March 8, 20232023-03-08
Reply by ●March 8, 20232023-03-08
On 3/8/2023 3:00 PM, Ricky wrote:> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 6:05:15 PM UTC-5, John S wrote: >> On 3/6/2023 4:21 PM, Ricky wrote: >>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:44:39 PM UTC-5, John S wrote: >>>> On 3/4/2023 1:26 PM, Ricky wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:18:09 AM UTC-5, John S wrote: >>>>>> On 3/3/2023 8:34 PM, Ricky wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:06:11 AM UTC-5, John S wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2023 7:38 PM, Ricky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:18:10 PM UTC-4, John S wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2023 5:25 PM, Ricky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone here who thinks LTspice has a good UI? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've been working with it for a week or so, after not using for over a year. It's very hard to reacclimate to the zoom in and out being backwards from every UI I know under Windows. The Function keys will become familiar again, if I continue using it, but what an uphill climb. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I saw in an LTspice post that Mike E. is writing a new simulator. I hope he makes it compatible with the existing models. But I suppose he would not be able to work with the company models that don't have accessible contents. I'm wondering how useful it will be to the engineering community as a whole. There are lots of models you just can't get other than as locked by ADI. I think TI has given up on the idea of TINA being their goto simulator. LTspice just has too much steam on the boiler. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which version of LTSpice? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Did the UI change? I must have missed that. This is 17.0.36 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, it changed from IV to XVII. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't use 17. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok... Are you suggesting the UI has significantly changed between the two lineages??? Are they still updating IV? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure about all the UI changes >>>>> >>>>> So it may not have changed? >>>>> >>>> Well, how could I know? I have already stated that I did not continue >>>> using V17. Have I misinterpreted your question? >>> >>> Previously, you replied to my question... >>> >>>>> Did the UI change? I must have missed that. This is 17.0.36 >>>>> >>>> Yes, it changed from IV to XVII. >>> >>> This would imply you know something about it. But apparently not. >>> >> No, it implies that I know very little about V17 as mentioned above. If >> I have not used it how can you ASSUME I know something more about it >> than I mentioned? Are daft or just practicing to be so? Why are you >> pressing me for more information than I have? What's wrong with you? > > I'm not pressing you for any information. What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I'm simply pointing out, very clearly with a quote, that you stated the UI changed between IV and XVII. If you don't know anything about it, how could you know that it changed? If you do know something that changed, you should be able to talk about it, instead of insisting you know nothing.What, because I tried it superficially and didn't like it so I never went further? All I knew is that the version and owner changed. You are one stupid ass.> I don't get you. Which of the words I'm using, do you not understand? > > Do you understand now? You said one thing, now you are saying something different. Can you at least acknowledge that? >How can anyone understand you with your flawed ability to communicate? I acknowledge your lack of logic. Feel better? Go to hell, asshole. -- Dogs make me happy. Humans make my head hurt.
Reply by ●March 8, 20232023-03-08
On 3/8/2023 3:06 PM, Ricky wrote:> On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 6:16:20 PM UTC-5, John S wrote: >> On 3/6/2023 9:20 PM, Ricky wrote: >>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:44:22 PM UTC-5, Simon S Aysdie wrote: >>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:17:14 PM UTC-8, Ricky wrote: >>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-5, Simon S Aysdie wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:25:38 PM UTC-8, Ricky wrote: >>>>>>> Is there anyone here who thinks LTspice has a good UI? >>>>>> It's okay. Not bad, for sure. All LTspice does is spice sims, so it doesn't need a lot. Because I've used Mentor means I've had much greater suffering in my life than using LTspice. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the editor has a lineage somehow aligned with Cohesion Designer. But I am not sure. >>>>>>> I've been working with it for a week or so, after not using for over a year. It's very hard to reacclimate to the zoom in and out being backwards from every UI I know under Windows. The Function keys will become familiar again, if I continue using it, but what an uphill climb. >>>>>> Scroll wheel works the same as other progs for me. (Some other programs need the CTRL button pushed simultaneously with wheel scroll, but the direction is the same.) >>>>> Someone mentioned that the scroll wheel direction is a selection in the control panel, so that is now fixed. But it is still a hurky-jerky mess. Very sensitive to the speed. This results in aberrant zooms of much more speed than expected, while also being very insensitive to slow movements of the scroll wheel. Now, I need to get used to it being like other apps... lol. It doesn't take long to mess up decades of muscle memory. >>>> You probably have a funky mouse. Mine has never been sensitive w/LTspice. I've never changed the default. >>> >>> Nothing to do with the mouse. If it were the mouse, I would see it in every program I use and I would not see it with all the mice I've ever used with LTspice on four machines over the years. The only common element is LTspice. Or maybe it's poltergeist? >>> >>> >>>>>> Alt+backspace is still undo after 20+ years. It isn't documented anymore, I think. It is also F9. Rather odd. But you can change these. See >>>>>> >>>>>> C:\Users\%username%\AppData\Roaming\LTspiceXVII.ini >>>>> Yes, I've found the nearly impossible to view settings table for the keys. Fortunately I make few mistakes, so this one doesn't matter... lol As if! >>>>>>> I saw in an LTspice post that Mike E. is writing a new simulator. I hope he makes it compatible with the existing models. But I suppose he would not be able to work with the company models that don't have accessible contents. I'm wondering how useful it will be to the engineering community as a whole. ... >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see the point, frankly, unless he's writing one for TI. >>>>>> >>>>>>> ...There are lots of models you just can't get other than as locked by ADI. I think TI has given up on the idea of TINA being their goto simulator. LTspice just has too much steam on the boiler. >>>>>> >>>>>> TI loses SMPS business because ADI/Linear have a simulator and fast SMPS sim models. I mean, that was the whole point. It was first called "SwitcherCAD." >>>>> Yes, and TI tried with their own. But LTspice has a lot of inertia. I believe it is used in schools a lot. >>>> TI "didn't try." Tina was always a joke. Just terrible. The PSpice version they are now trying to pawn is a crippled version, like the old EDU version of PSpice was. LTspice is not crippled. You can put as many parts in there and do as large a sim as your time and memory allow. >>>> >>>> LTspice should be used it schools because it is free. Just like they should use Octave instead of matlab. I am always shocked when talking to recent graduates that their Profs had them using the EDU version of PSpice. Crazy. >>>>> >>>>> Right now I'm fighting the PWL format. I need to measure the spectrum of an IRIG signal. The only way I can think to generate a realistic one is to use a PWL file to control the amplitude of a 1kHz sine wave. I expect there's a feature somewhere that lets you do this with some "simple" feature, but it's faster to work with what you know, than to always be trying to learn new things about LTspice. I don't use it that often and it's hard to remember the arcane details of how to use this tool. It would seem Mike didn't really consider users who are not professional simulator writers. Imagine if cars were made this way! But it works, mostly. We'll see how much more time I have to spend on getting the spectrum of this signal. >>>> I'm no expert either. I'm not sure if there is a more elegant way. Sorry. I haven't heard the term "IRIG signal" since I worked for Symmetricom. You can use behavioral elements to modulate--I made an ideal multiplier. But it is the same Q: where does the modulated signal come in to drive the multiplier? >>> >>> I thought Symmetricom made equipment that used the IRIG time code. I believe I used info from their web site back when I initially designed this unit in 2008. Yep, Google finds all sorts of IRIG gear with the name Symmetricom. Seems they were bought by Microsemi since then. >>> >>> >>>> Your complaint is largely the same for every professional tool. None are easy to figure out if use is infrequent. That's the way it always goes. >>> >>> No, there are many tools that have good user interfaces and are easy to pick up again with infrequent use. >>> >>> >>>> LTspice is a bit less documented and there is no paid support. But it is free. Because it is free there is a massive user group, informal support, and other user documentation (including nice utoob vids). You can take this tool with you from one employer to the next. While it is owned by ADI, it is essentially non-proprietary from the user's perspective. That is worth a lot. I have library parts I made a couple of decades ago that are still in my library. >>> >>> Yes, LTspice has many advantages, but the UI is not one of them. >> Why is it that you have so much more trouble with it than others? Your >> attitude, maybe? Are you one of those people who expect everything to be >> handed to them on the proverbial silver platter? Grow up! > > I don't expect anything, other than a civil tone in a discussion. You seem to be very frustrated that I'm not conforming to your ideas of appreciation of a tool. I don't believe that we should never speak ill of free tools. If the world were mute about crap software, it would never get any better. > > Sorry if I offend your fascist vies of software.Well, here we agree. You are sorry.> >>>>> Then tomorrow I'll find where someone already did this. >>>> You complain a lot about something very powerful, ubiquitous, and free. >>> >>> There's no small number of threads in this group that are complaining about something technical, in addition to the many threads that are just complaining about something. That is how we communicate problems and some people are happy to discuss the problems, with the hope of finding a solution. That's what I'm looking for. Are you trying to help? > > I see you ignored this. But that's expected in an ad hominem attack. I'm sorry you aren't mature enough to have a reasonable discussion of a tool. I guess some people get too emotional about inanimate things and software. >If you are sorry, which was addressed above, then why carry on with the conversation? I don't get emotional about tools. I get emotional about people who bait others to get their jollies, like yourself. That is all you're doing in this conversation. Trolling. Get lost, D.H. -- Dogs make me happy. Humans make my head hurt.
Reply by ●March 8, 20232023-03-08
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 6:54:42 PM UTC-5, John S wrote:> On 3/8/2023 3:00 PM, Ricky wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 6:05:15 PM UTC-5, John S wrote: > >> On 3/6/2023 4:21 PM, Ricky wrote: > >>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:44:39 PM UTC-5, John S wrote: > >>>> On 3/4/2023 1:26 PM, Ricky wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:18:09 AM UTC-5, John S wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/3/2023 8:34 PM, Ricky wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:06:11 AM UTC-5, John S wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2023 7:38 PM, Ricky wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 9:18:10 PM UTC-4, John S wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2023 5:25 PM, Ricky wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone here who thinks LTspice has a good UI? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I've been working with it for a week or so, after not using for over a year. It's very hard to reacclimate to the zoom in and out being backwards from every UI I know under Windows. The Function keys will become familiar again, if I continue using it, but what an uphill climb. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I saw in an LTspice post that Mike E. is writing a new simulator. I hope he makes it compatible with the existing models. But I suppose he would not be able to work with the company models that don't have accessible contents. I'm wondering how useful it will be to the engineering community as a whole. There are lots of models you just can't get other than as locked by ADI. I think TI has given up on the idea of TINA being their goto simulator. LTspice just has too much steam on the boiler. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Which version of LTSpice? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Did the UI change? I must have missed that. This is 17.0.36 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, it changed from IV to XVII. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't use 17. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ok... Are you suggesting the UI has significantly changed between the two lineages??? Are they still updating IV? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure about all the UI changes > >>>>> > >>>>> So it may not have changed? > >>>>> > >>>> Well, how could I know? I have already stated that I did not continue > >>>> using V17. Have I misinterpreted your question? > >>> > >>> Previously, you replied to my question... > >>> > >>>>> Did the UI change? I must have missed that. This is 17.0.36 > >>>>> > >>>> Yes, it changed from IV to XVII. > >>> > >>> This would imply you know something about it. But apparently not. > >>> > >> No, it implies that I know very little about V17 as mentioned above. If > >> I have not used it how can you ASSUME I know something more about it > >> than I mentioned? Are daft or just practicing to be so? Why are you > >> pressing me for more information than I have? What's wrong with you? > > > > I'm not pressing you for any information. What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I'm simply pointing out, very clearly with a quote, that you stated the UI changed between IV and XVII. If you don't know anything about it, how could you know that it changed? If you do know something that changed, you should be able to talk about it, instead of insisting you know nothing. > What, because I tried it superficially and didn't like it so I never > went further? All I knew is that the version and owner changed. You are > one stupid ass.Ok, so now you are changing your statement again! You have tried it and there was something you didn't like. Based on your previous statement that the UI changed, I would have to assume what you didn't like was in the UI. But when I ask you what changed in the UI, you get all bent out of shape. Very strange.> > I don't get you. Which of the words I'm using, do you not understand? > > > > Do you understand now? You said one thing, now you are saying something different. Can you at least acknowledge that? > > > How can anyone understand you with your flawed ability to communicate? I > acknowledge your lack of logic. Feel better? > > Go to hell, asshole.https://www.pinterest.com/pin/87890630218951567/ -- Rick C. -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
