LTSpice UI...

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 17:58:39 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:40:02 -0800 (PST), Simon S Aysdie
gwhite@ti.com> 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.)

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

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.\"

TI is now using a version of Pspice or something. One of my guys knows
how to run it.

TI has some great little switcher chips that are a tenth of the price
of the LTC parts and much quieter. TPS54302 family. I just breadboard
them.

I don\'t entirely trust switcher simulations. They are usually OK for
loop dynamics and efficiency, but not for noise.

Pspice apparently costs $1500 per month, and that gets you up to 200
hours of run time.

 

[Simon S Aysdie]

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 6:11:29 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 17:58:39 -0800, John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:40:02 -0800 (PST), Simon S Aysdie
gwh...@ti.com> 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.)

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

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.\"

TI is now using a version of Pspice or something. One of my guys knows
how to run it.

I\'m not saying anything bad about the PSpice product--it is a nice product, and I used it back around 2000. I doubt I\'ll ever use the full product again. But that is my point about the stripped down version: my incentives to use it are very low. TI has had 20 years to get on board. They haven\'t.

TI has some great little switcher chips that are a tenth of the price
of the LTC parts and much quieter. TPS54302 family. I just breadboard
them.

I use TI switchers too. I\'ve used very many. But, the mentioned case was for a time sensitive project, not a cost sensitive one. The models and simulator allowed faster and more certain design.

I don\'t entirely trust switcher simulations. They are usually OK for
loop dynamics and efficiency, but not for noise.

Pspice apparently costs $1500 per month, and that gets you up to 200
hours of run time.

If I\'m forking out cash for simulators, I\'d probably pay for AWR or simile before a spice simulator. I have a free spice simulator with schematic capture. Actually, I have 4 free ones, but I only use one of them. The incentive to pay for a spice simulator just isn\'t there for me when there are other productivity products competing for my $.

 

[Ricky]

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.

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?

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 02/03/2023 23:25, 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.

LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

..param Rlim 75
..param Clift 10n
..param Cbp 180p

....and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its value
and click \'ok\', then nothing happens. Instead, you have to right click,
then click \'cancel\', then edit from the list and press \'ok\'. A bit
annoying, but other than that the UI works ok once you\'ve defined your
keys to do more \'sensible\' things. (M for move, R for rotate, Ctrl-C for
copy etc)

Oh - copy and paste on a transformer changes the annotation for the
windings, but not for the coupling coefficient.

I\'ve a good mind to ask for a refund.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[dalai lamah]

Un bel giorno Clive Arthur digitò:

LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

.param Rlim 75
.param Clift 10n
.param Cbp 180p

...and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its value
and click \'ok\', then nothing happens. Instead, you have to right click,
then click \'cancel\', then edit from the list and press \'ok\'.

I had that annoying problem too with LTspice XVII, but it seems to be fixed
on the new LTspice 17.1.x released this year.

Change log copied from a forum:

* Transient Frequency Domain Analysis. LTspice 17.1 includes a new
frequency response analyzer component and associate .fra spice directive.
* Frequency domain analysis has been reduced to a single component and
directive, greatly simplifying the generation of Bode plots for non-linear
circuits, including switched mode power supplies
* Both loop gain and output impedance are supported by this feature
* Improved Installation. LTspice library files are stored in users’
%LOCALAPPDATA% directories, instead of My Documents
* Waveform Viewer. Faster plotting speed for large datasets
* Keyboard Shortcuts. Keyboard shortcuts can be saved to and loaded from
text files
* Schematic Capture. Numerous schematic editor bugs have been eradicated
* Simulator Operation
* Fixed a number of convergence problems
* Updated initial conditions behavior and documentation to match behavior
* Reduced multi-threaded CPU loading

Another important feature for me is that you can now specify relative paths
for the models by manually editing the .asy simbol files. In this way you
can give to anyone a complete package that just works, without the need to
manually copy the models in some obscure folder. I think it should have
been supported also on XVII in some way, but I\'ve never managed to make it
work.

--
Fletto i muscoli e sono nel vuoto.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2023-03-07 05:54, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 02/03/2023 23:25, 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.


LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

.param Rlim 75 .param Clift 10n .param Cbp 180p

...and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its
value and click \'ok\', then nothing happens.

Works fine for me--I just type <enter> when I\'m done, and it remembers.

They did make it harder to avoid the specialized edit dialogs in XVII--I
just put stuff in multi-line directive groups, e.g.

; SIMULATION COMMAND
; .tran 100u
..ac oct 100 10 1g


; PARAMETERS
..param Ree 2
..step param Ree list 1 2 5

You double-click on the heading, and a normal OS dialog box comes up
that you type into as usual. in wine you have to use <ctrl><enter> to
get a new line, not <ctl>M, but that\'s the only difference I notice.

I generally like XVII--for instance, there are some improvements in
dealing with crappy models such as TI\'s. In early versions, and in IV,
the OPA140 model would fail to converge unless the supplies were
-exactly- symmetric, and often not even then.

The current version handles the exact same OPA140 model just fine,
probably on account of some workaround for all the sharp corners and
discontinuities in the TI model.

Instead, you have to right click, then click \'cancel\', then edit from
the list and press \'ok\'. A bit annoying, but other than that the UI
works ok once you\'ve defined your keys to do more \'sensible\' things.
(M for move, R for rotate, Ctrl-C for copy etc)

Sure, and f5 for \"run simulation\". Makes it more like Visual Studio.
LTspice gets credit for making that pretty easy.

Oh - copy and paste on a transformer changes the annotation for the
windings, but not for the coupling coefficient.

Ain\'t no such thing as a transformer in my LTspice--dunno about yours.
Just individual inductors with coupling coefficients. If you copy and
paste, you have to specify the coupling between the two new inductors.

There\'s no way I can think of to automate that in a useful fashion--do
you want it to guess, based on the way the inductors are arranged on the
schematic? Not for me, thanks--that\'s definitely your pistol-shoehorn
combination, right there.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2023-03-07 07:52, dalai lamah wrote:

Un bel giorno Clive Arthur digitò:

LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

.param Rlim 75
.param Clift 10n
.param Cbp 180p

...and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its value
and click \'ok\', then nothing happens. Instead, you have to right click,
then click \'cancel\', then edit from the list and press \'ok\'.

I had that annoying problem too with LTspice XVII, but it seems to be fixed
on the new LTspice 17.1.x released this year.

Change log copied from a forum:

* Transient Frequency Domain Analysis. LTspice 17.1 includes a new
frequency response analyzer component and associate .fra spice directive.
* Frequency domain analysis has been reduced to a single component and
directive, greatly simplifying the generation of Bode plots for non-linear
circuits, including switched mode power supplies
* Both loop gain and output impedance are supported by this feature

Nice. I\'ll have to try that out.

* Improved Installation. LTspice library files are stored in users’
%LOCALAPPDATA% directories, instead of My Documents

* Waveform Viewer. Faster plotting speed for large datasets

A bit better, true. However, it still gets confused doing marching
waveforms with stepped parameters.

* Keyboard Shortcuts. Keyboard shortcuts can be saved to and loaded from
text files
* Schematic Capture. Numerous schematic editor bugs have been eradicated
* Simulator Operation
* Fixed a number of convergence problems

Yup!

* Updated initial conditions behavior and documentation to match behavior
* Reduced multi-threaded CPU loading

Another important feature for me is that you can now specify relative paths
for the models by manually editing the .asy simbol files. In this way you
can give to anyone a complete package that just works, without the need to
manually copy the models in some obscure folder. I think it should have
been supported also on XVII in some way, but I\'ve never managed to make it
work.

IIRC it works in IV if the symbol is in the current directory, so you
can just zip it up with the .asc and .lib files and send it off.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2023-03-07 10:18, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-03-07 05:54, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 02/03/2023 23:25, 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.


LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

.param Rlim 75 .param Clift 10n .param Cbp 180p

...and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its
value and click \'ok\', then nothing happens.

Works fine for me--I just type <enter> when I\'m done, and it remembers.

They did make it harder to avoid the specialized edit dialogs in XVII--I
just put stuff in multi-line directive groups,  e.g.

; SIMULATION COMMAND
; .tran 100u
.ac oct 100 10 1g


; PARAMETERS
.param Ree 2
.step param Ree list 1 2 5

You

right-click

on the heading, and a normal OS dialog box comes up
that you type into as usual.  in wine you have to use <ctrl><enter> to
get a new line, not <ctl>M, but that\'s the only difference I notice.

I generally like XVII--for instance, there are some improvements in
dealing with crappy models such as TI\'s.  In early versions, and in IV,
the OPA140 model would fail to converge unless the supplies were
-exactly- symmetric, and often not even then.

The current version handles the exact same OPA140 model just fine,
probably on account of some workaround for all the sharp corners and
discontinuities in the TI model.

Instead, you have to right click, then click \'cancel\', then edit from
the list and press \'ok\'.  A bit annoying, but other than that the UI
works ok once you\'ve defined your keys to do more \'sensible\' things.
(M for move, R for rotate, Ctrl-C for copy etc)

Sure, and f5 for \"run simulation\".  Makes it more like Visual Studio.
LTspice gets credit for making that pretty easy.

Oh - copy and paste on a transformer changes the annotation for the
windings, but not for the coupling coefficient.

Ain\'t no such thing as a transformer in my LTspice--dunno about yours.
Just individual inductors with coupling coefficients.  If you copy and
paste, you have to specify the coupling between the two new inductors.

There\'s no way I can think of to automate that in a useful fashion--do
you want it to guess, based on the way the inductors are arranged on the
schematic?  Not for me, thanks--that\'s definitely your pistol-shoehorn
combination, right there.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 13:52:46 +0100, dalai lamah
<antonio12358@hotmail.com> wrote:

Un bel giorno Clive Arthur digitò:

LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

.param Rlim 75
.param Clift 10n
.param Cbp 180p

...and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its value
and click \'ok\', then nothing happens. Instead, you have to right click,
then click \'cancel\', then edit from the list and press \'ok\'.

I had that annoying problem too with LTspice XVII, but it seems to be fixed
on the new LTspice 17.1.x released this year.

Change log copied from a forum:

* Transient Frequency Domain Analysis. LTspice 17.1 includes a new
frequency response analyzer component and associate .fra spice directive.
* Frequency domain analysis has been reduced to a single component and
directive, greatly simplifying the generation of Bode plots for non-linear
circuits, including switched mode power supplies
* Both loop gain and output impedance are supported by this feature
* Improved Installation. LTspice library files are stored in users’
%LOCALAPPDATA% directories, instead of My Documents
* Waveform Viewer. Faster plotting speed for large datasets
* Keyboard Shortcuts. Keyboard shortcuts can be saved to and loaded from
text files
* Schematic Capture. Numerous schematic editor bugs have been eradicated
* Simulator Operation
* Fixed a number of convergence problems
* Updated initial conditions behavior and documentation to match behavior
* Reduced multi-threaded CPU loading

Another important feature for me is that you can now specify relative paths
for the models by manually editing the .asy simbol files. In this way you
can give to anyone a complete package that just works, without the need to
manually copy the models in some obscure folder. I think it should have
been supported also on XVII in some way, but I\'ve never managed to make it
work.

I put each .param on its own line (not in a text box) and right-click
edit works fine.

Does putting them in a box control the order of execution? I can see
how that might matter.

Convergence fixes are welcome! I\'d like a .sloppy directive to just
do a fast sim at reduced accuracy. I don\'t need a switching supply to
be parts-per-trillion accurate.

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 07/03/2023 15:18, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 2023-03-07 05:54, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 02/03/2023 23:25, Ricky wrote:

<snip>

Oh - copy and paste on a transformer changes the annotation for the
windings, but not for the coupling coefficient.

Ain\'t no such thing as a transformer in my LTspice--dunno about yours.
Just individual inductors with coupling coefficients.  If you copy and
paste, you have to specify the coupling between the two new inductors.

There\'s no way I can think of to automate that in a useful fashion--do
you want it to guess, based on the way the inductors are arranged on the
schematic?  Not for me, thanks--that\'s definitely your pistol-shoehorn
combination, right there.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Yeah, I guess it would be tricky. I always draw my transformers with
the K..... between the windings as if it were the core (it looks kewl!),
so copying as one \'box\' might give me unrealistic expectations that the
coupling annotations should change too.

Another useful thing would be to temporarily lock the scaling on the
plot screen, so you can zoom in, lock it, change something and run
again. (Or maybe there is a way?)

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 07/03/2023 15:18, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 2023-03-07 05:54, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 02/03/2023 23:25, Ricky wrote:

<snip>

LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

.param Rlim 75 .param Clift 10n .param Cbp 180p

...and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its
value and click \'ok\', then nothing happens.

Works fine for me--I just type <enter> when I\'m done, and it remembers.

So it does! It\'s the OK which doesn\'t work, thanks.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 10:18:44 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2023-03-07 05:54, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 02/03/2023 23:25, 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.


LTspice XVII

If you have a group of .params, eg...

.param Rlim 75 .param Clift 10n .param Cbp 180p

...and you right click on one of them on the schematic, edit its
value and click \'ok\', then nothing happens.

Works fine for me--I just type <enter> when I\'m done, and it remembers.

They did make it harder to avoid the specialized edit dialogs in XVII--I
just put stuff in multi-line directive groups, e.g.

; SIMULATION COMMAND
; .tran 100u
.ac oct 100 10 1g


; PARAMETERS
.param Ree 2
.step param Ree list 1 2 5

You double-click on the heading, and a normal OS dialog box comes up
that you type into as usual. in wine you have to use <ctrl><enter> to
get a new line, not <ctl>M, but that\'s the only difference I notice.

I generally like XVII--for instance, there are some improvements in
dealing with crappy models such as TI\'s. In early versions, and in IV,
the OPA140 model would fail to converge unless the supplies were
-exactly- symmetric, and often not even then.

The current version handles the exact same OPA140 model just fine,
probably on account of some workaround for all the sharp corners and
discontinuities in the TI model.

Instead, you have to right click, then click \'cancel\', then edit from
the list and press \'ok\'. A bit annoying, but other than that the UI
works ok once you\'ve defined your keys to do more \'sensible\' things.
(M for move, R for rotate, Ctrl-C for copy etc)

Sure, and f5 for \"run simulation\". Makes it more like Visual Studio.
LTspice gets credit for making that pretty easy.

Oh - copy and paste on a transformer changes the annotation for the
windings, but not for the coupling coefficient.

Ain\'t no such thing as a transformer in my LTspice--dunno about yours.
Just individual inductors with coupling coefficients. If you copy and
paste, you have to specify the coupling between the two new inductors.

Copy and paste preserves node names too, which can create interesting
long-distance shorts.

There\'s no way I can think of to automate that in a useful fashion--do
you want it to guess, based on the way the inductors are arranged on the
schematic? Not for me, thanks--that\'s definitely your pistol-shoehorn
combination, right there.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Last time I checked, it still entangles parameters between transient
and frequency analysis, hence the need to mess with semicolons to
switch sim mode. Version IV switched modes properly.

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 07/03/2023 15:52, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

Last time I checked, [LTspice XVII] still entangles parameters between transient
and frequency analysis, hence the need to mess with semicolons to
switch sim mode. Version IV switched modes properly.

Ah yes, forgot that one.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2023-03-07 10:47, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 07/03/2023 15:18, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2023-03-07 05:54, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 02/03/2023 23:25, Ricky
wrote:

snip

 > Oh - copy and paste on a transformer changes the annotation for the
 > windings, but not for the coupling coefficient.

Ain\'t no such thing as a transformer in my LTspice--dunno about yours.
Just individual inductors with coupling coefficients.  If you copy and
paste, you have to specify the coupling between the two new inductors.

There\'s no way I can think of to automate that in a useful fashion--do
you want it to guess, based on the way the inductors are arranged on
the schematic?  Not for me, thanks--that\'s definitely your
pistol-shoehorn combination, right there.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


Yeah, I guess it would be tricky.  I always draw my transformers with
the K..... between the windings as if it were the core (it looks kewl!),
so copying as one \'box\' might give me unrealistic expectations that the
coupling annotations should change too.

Ah, okay, it\'s vitally important to be cooler than your CAD software,
for sure.

Another useful thing would be to temporarily lock the scaling on the
plot screen, so you can zoom in, lock it, change something and run
again.  (Or maybe there is a way?)

Agreed--the autoscaling on the plots is fascism at its best.

One approach is to plot not v(out) but min(high, max(low, v(out)) ).

On the X axis you can tell the sim to start storing data at some time
t_start instead of t = 0.

A recurring beef of mine is that the plot window code is stupid about
units--you have to use (1V/1A) a lot instead of 1ohm, for instance. In
noise plots, when inoise is a current, you often you want to check the
input-referred noise due to some part on the schematic.

\"No worries\", you say, \"I\'ll just divide by the built-in variable
\'gain\'\". Then you find that you have two vertical scales, one in
A/sqrt(Hz) and the other in V/(ohm sqrt(Hz)). To get one scale, you
have to multiply by \'inoise/v(onoise)\'.

That\'s a pain when building TIAs.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2023-03-07 10:52, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 10:18:44 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 2023-03-07 05:54, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 02/03/2023 23:25,
Ricky wrote:
Is there anyone here who thinks LTspice has a good UI?
snip

the windings, but not for the coupling coefficient.

Ain\'t no such thing as a transformer in my LTspice--dunno about
yours. Just individual inductors with coupling coefficients. If
you copy and paste, you have to specify the coupling between the
two new inductors.

Copy and paste preserves node names too, which can create interesting
long-distance shorts.

Yeah. Of course Diptrace will do that on your circuit board too, and
screw up all the board traces besides.

(We switched to Kicad 7. It\'s actually a professional EDA tool now.)

There\'s no way I can think of to automate that in a useful
fashion--do you want it to guess, based on the way the inductors
are arranged on the schematic? Not for me, thanks--that\'s
definitely your pistol-shoehorn combination, right there.

Last time I checked, it still entangles parameters between transient
and frequency analysis, hence the need to mess with semicolons to
switch sim mode. Version IV switched modes properly.

Yup. I used the semicolons in IV as well, though, because the dialog
box contents aren\'t preserved when the program exits.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[John S]

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?


--
Dogs make me happy. Humans make my head hurt.

 

[John S]

On 3/6/2023 4:56 PM, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:

Am 06.03.23 um 21:52 schrieb John S:
On 3/3/2023 8:53 PM, John Larkin wrote:

I made a choice some time ago. You ever do that?

Sort of like asking someone if they ever jack off in public and, when
they say no, you ask why not?


Even worse:
\"have you stopped beating your wife?\"

Say yes or no.

That\'s an old one. And she died in 2007.


--
Dogs make me happy. Humans make my head hurt.

 

[John S]

On 3/6/2023 7:44 PM, 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.

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?

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.

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.

Then tomorrow I\'ll find where someone already did this.

You complain a lot about something very powerful, ubiquitous, and free.

+100


--
Dogs make me happy. Humans make my head hurt.

 

[John S]

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!

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?

--
Dogs make me happy. Humans make my head hurt.

 

[John S]

On 3/6/2023 8:48 PM, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 6:11:29 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2023 17:58:39 -0800, John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:40:02 -0800 (PST), Simon S Aysdie
gwh...@ti.com> 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.)

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

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.\"

TI is now using a version of Pspice or something. One of my guys knows
how to run it.

I\'m not saying anything bad about the PSpice product--it is a nice product, and I used it back around 2000. I doubt I\'ll ever use the full product again. But that is my point about the stripped down version: my incentives to use it are very low. TI has had 20 years to get on board. They haven\'t.

TI has some great little switcher chips that are a tenth of the price
of the LTC parts and much quieter. TPS54302 family. I just breadboard
them.

I use TI switchers too. I\'ve used very many. But, the mentioned case was for a time sensitive project, not a cost sensitive one. The models and simulator allowed faster and more certain design.

I don\'t entirely trust switcher simulations. They are usually OK for
loop dynamics and efficiency, but not for noise.

Pspice apparently costs $1500 per month, and that gets you up to 200
hours of run time.

If I\'m forking out cash for simulators, I\'d probably pay for AWR or simile before a spice simulator. I have a free spice simulator with schematic capture. Actually, I have 4 free ones, but I only use one of them. The incentive to pay for a spice simulator just isn\'t there for me when there are other productivity products competing for my $.

I\'m with John L on this one. There are lots of times you can get a
sample working on a piece of copper clad and learn most of what you need
to know.

--
Dogs make me happy. Humans make my head hurt.