"Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices"

[Simon S Aysdie]

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 2:19:16 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-5, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

Time will tell. I don't know how ADI views LTspice. It's a free tool that likely provides only a minimum return. Maybe they will find someone else to take it over. Or maybe they will allow it to continue without much further effort.

Probably the only real work it requires is to support models for new parts. I'd be willing to bet that is already handled by the groups who produce the various parts.

LTSpice is a whole lot better than the other free Spice clones, and Mike Engelhardt seems to have been a key figure in keeping it that way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-5, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

Time will tell. I don't know how ADI views LTspice. It's a free tool that likely provides only a minimum return. Maybe they will find someone else to take it over. Or maybe they will allow it to continue without much further effort.

Probably the only real work it requires is to support models for new parts. I'd be willing to bet that is already handled by the groups who produce the various parts.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800 (PST), Simon S Aysdie
<gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

Parts are being shipped without models, too.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 05/03/2020 09:00, news@rblack01.plus.com wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

That figures. I have found the schematic entry increasingly flakey of
late.

Put a .param statement or simulation command, .tran, .ac or whatever, on
the schematic. Run the sim, then right-click on the command. The dialog
box (the new style introduced in XVII) pops up, change some values, hit
OK. The command on the sim is unchanged.

ctrl+right click and edit the statement directly, if you can remember the
syntax, hit OK and the edits succeed.

Anybody else seen this?

Yes, it's annoying.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

That figures. I have found the schematic entry increasingly flakey of
late.

Put a .param statement or simulation command, .tran, .ac or whatever, on
the schematic. Run the sim, then right-click on the command. The dialog
box (the new style introduced in XVII) pops up, change some values, hit
OK. The command on the sim is unchanged.

ctrl+right click and edit the statement directly, if you can remember the
syntax, hit OK and the edits succeed.

Anybody else seen this?

 

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), news@rblack01.plus.com wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

That figures. I have found the schematic entry increasingly flakey of
late.

Put a .param statement or simulation command, .tran, .ac or whatever, on
the schematic. Run the sim, then right-click on the command. The dialog
box (the new style introduced in XVII) pops up, change some values, hit
OK. The command on the sim is unchanged.

ctrl+right click and edit the statement directly, if you can remember the
syntax, hit OK and the edits succeed.

Anybody else seen this?

The "helpful" dialog boxes, like the one that edits the simulation
command, have been goofy for some time now. If you switch from, say,
time domain to frequency domain sim, the parameters get all scrambled.

I flip the .tran and .ac command lines between directives and comments
to change sim mode. It didn't used to be necessary to do that.


Maybe Analog wrecked the philosophy. It would be interesting to hear
the story some day. Mike is probably NDA'd, or maybe paid, to not
tell.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

 

[Simon S Aysdie]

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 1:00:58 AM UTC-8, ne...@rblack01.plus.com wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

That figures. I have found the schematic entry increasingly flakey of
late.

Put a .param statement or simulation command, .tran, .ac or whatever, on
the schematic. Run the sim, then right-click on the command. The dialog
box (the new style introduced in XVII) pops up, change some values, hit
OK. The command on the sim is unchanged.

ctrl+right click and edit the statement directly, if you can remember the
syntax, hit OK and the edits succeed.

Anybody else seen this?

Something like that, I think.

Is it time to have a discussion on "the last stable and nice version"? and get the related install executable stored someplace?

 

[Helmut Sennewald]

Am 05.03.2020 um 17:09 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), news@rblack01.plus.com wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

That figures. I have found the schematic entry increasingly flakey of
late.

Put a .param statement or simulation command, .tran, .ac or whatever, on
the schematic. Run the sim, then right-click on the command. The dialog
box (the new style introduced in XVII) pops up, change some values, hit
OK. The command on the sim is unchanged.

ctrl+right click and edit the statement directly, if you can remember the
syntax, hit OK and the edits succeed.

Anybody else seen this?

The "helpful" dialog boxes, like the one that edits the simulation
command, have been goofy for some time now. If you switch from, say,
time domain to frequency domain sim, the parameters get all scrambled.

I flip the .tran and .ac command lines between directives and comments
to change sim mode. It didn't used to be necessary to do that.


Maybe Analog wrecked the philosophy. It would be interesting to hear
the story some day. Mike is probably NDA'd, or maybe paid, to not
tell.

Hello John,
The "problem" caused when switching between the simulation type while
using the standard dialog has been implemented years ago by Mike - an
extra editor for every type of command line. There is an easy
workaround. Make seperate SPICE-directives for each type of simulation
which you need and make all to comments. Then make only the one you need
to a SPICE-directive.

Another department of Analog Devices supports now LTspice. Earlier or
later this would have happened anyway. I am happy that Analog Devices
has decided that LTspice is their primary simulation tool. This
guarantees that LTspice will be supported for the next decades.

Helmut
Founder of the LTspice group in groups.io. All content of the LTspice
Yahoo group has been copied to groups.io before Yahoo deleted the
content of all groups last year.
https://groups.io/g/LTspice

PS: I am not an employee of Analog Devices.

 

>...and get the related install executable stored someplace?

It (4) might be portable. (just copy the files) I might find out soon when I put up this other PC. I can "stick" it in there and see if it runs.

 

[Joerg]

On 2020-03-05 13:07, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:53:21 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2020-03-04 19:19, Rick C wrote:

[...]

If I'd tally up the IC sales that this has triggered
just from my designs we'd be talking seven digits and the profit margins
on those chips are likely huge.

LT Spice has probably sold 10 digits worth of parts. It likely
contributed to ADI buying LTC. I assume Mike is rich, as he deserves
to be.

Yes, I fully agree. He made LTC more money than dozens of top sales
engineers together.

It is sad that Mike is leaving but all good things eventually come to an
end. AD might not have Mike anymore but we still have Helmut.

I've used many of their chips for "off
label" purposes and that would be nearly impossible without LTSPice.


Probably the only real work it requires is to support models for new
parts. I'd be willing to bet that is already handled by the groups
who produce the various parts.


Let's hope so, and that it will be done in the longterm.

I've been told that the model dev group has been "rearranged" lately,
which is why I have LTM8078s and eval boards but no Spice model.

Pity, I could do some tricky fun stuff with that part.

That's exactly the market, off-label use. Most of the time the BOM cost
isn't all that important for such projects. They just want it working,
and fast.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:53:21 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

On 2020-03-04 19:19, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-5, Simon S Aysdie
wrote:
"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

Time will tell. I don't know how ADI views LTspice. It's a free
tool that likely provides only a minimum return. Maybe they will
find someone else to take it over. Or maybe they will allow it to
continue without much further effort.


"Minimum return"? That sure would be a very short-sighted view and a
major marketing blunder. For me and many other engineers LTSpice is the
core reason why we use rather expensive switcher chips from the former
LTC and now AD.

Exactly. We use LTC parts because the models work.

If I'd tally up the IC sales that this has triggered
just from my designs we'd be talking seven digits and the profit margins
on those chips are likely huge.

LT Spice has probably sold 10 digits worth of parts. It likely
contributed to ADI buying LTC. I assume Mike is rich, as he deserves
to be.

I've used many of their chips for "off
label" purposes and that would be nearly impossible without LTSPice.


Probably the only real work it requires is to support models for new
parts. I'd be willing to bet that is already handled by the groups
who produce the various parts.


Let's hope so, and that it will be done in the longterm.

I've been told that the model dev group has been "rearranged" lately,
which is why I have LTM8078s and eval boards but no Spice model.

Pity, I could do some tricky fun stuff with that part.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Joerg]

On 2020-03-04 19:19, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-5, Simon S Aysdie
wrote:
"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

Time will tell. I don't know how ADI views LTspice. It's a free
tool that likely provides only a minimum return. Maybe they will
find someone else to take it over. Or maybe they will allow it to
continue without much further effort.

"Minimum return"? That sure would be a very short-sighted view and a
major marketing blunder. For me and many other engineers LTSpice is the
core reason why we use rather expensive switcher chips from the former
LTC and now AD. If I'd tally up the IC sales that this has triggered
just from my designs we'd be talking seven digits and the profit margins
on those chips are likely huge. I've used many of their chips for "off
label" purposes and that would be nearly impossible without LTSPice.

Probably the only real work it requires is to support models for new
parts. I'd be willing to bet that is already handled by the groups
who produce the various parts.

Let's hope so, and that it will be done in the longterm.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 6/3/20 8:17 am, Joerg wrote:

On 2020-03-05 13:07, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:53:21 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
LT Spice has probably sold 10 digits worth of parts. It likely
contributed to ADI buying LTC. I assume Mike is rich, as he deserves
to be.
Yes, I fully agree. He made LTC more money than dozens of top sales
engineers together.
It is sad that Mike is leaving but all good things eventually come to an
end. AD might not have Mike anymore but we still have Helmut.

On the other hand, they might hire a competent software engineer who
knows something about UX to work on it. Mike was great at the backend
stuff but hopeless in the UI.

Otherwise some competent OSS person might decide to release a version of
Superspice now it's open source. That's supposed to be pretty good also.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-03-05 13:42, Helmut Sennewald wrote:

Am 05.03.2020 um 17:09 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), news@rblack01.plus.com wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

That figures.  I have found the schematic entry increasingly flakey of
late.

Put a .param statement or simulation command, .tran, .ac or whatever, on
the schematic.  Run the sim, then right-click on the command.  The
dialog
box (the new style introduced in XVII) pops up,  change some values, hit
OK.  The command on the sim is unchanged.

ctrl+right click and edit the statement directly, if you can remember
the
syntax, hit OK and the edits succeed.

Anybody else seen this?

The "helpful" dialog boxes, like the one that edits the simulation
command, have been goofy for some time now. If you switch from, say,
time domain to frequency domain sim, the parameters get all scrambled.

I flip the .tran and .ac command lines between directives and comments
to change sim mode. It didn't used to be necessary to do that.


Maybe Analog wrecked the philosophy. It would be interesting to hear
the story some day. Mike is probably NDA'd, or maybe paid, to not
tell.


Hello John,
The "problem" caused when switching between the simulation type while
using the standard dialog has been implemented years ago by Mike - an
extra editor for every type of command line. There is an easy
workaround. Make seperate SPICE-directives for each type of simulation
which you need and make all to comments. Then make only the one you need
to a SPICE-directive.

I usually use a directive block with a comment in the first line, e.g.

; SIMULATION COMMAND
..tran 1
;.ac blah blah

That way if you right-click on the first line, you don't get the
training-wheels dialogue box for AC, transient, or noise.

Like many of us, Mike's not especially young, so his passing the torch
isn't unexpected. Is there a reason to suppose that he didn't jump, but
got pushed?

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

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 6:53:11 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-03-05 13:42, Helmut Sennewald wrote:
Am 05.03.2020 um 17:09 schrieb jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), news@rblack01.plus.com wrote:

On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 18:55:16 -0800, Simon S Aysdie wrote:

"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

That figures.  I have found the schematic entry increasingly flakey of
late.

Put a .param statement or simulation command, .tran, .ac or whatever, on
the schematic.  Run the sim, then right-click on the command.  The
dialog
box (the new style introduced in XVII) pops up,  change some values, hit
OK.  The command on the sim is unchanged.

ctrl+right click and edit the statement directly, if you can remember
the
syntax, hit OK and the edits succeed.

Anybody else seen this?

The "helpful" dialog boxes, like the one that edits the simulation
command, have been goofy for some time now. If you switch from, say,
time domain to frequency domain sim, the parameters get all scrambled.

I flip the .tran and .ac command lines between directives and comments
to change sim mode. It didn't used to be necessary to do that.


Maybe Analog wrecked the philosophy. It would be interesting to hear
the story some day. Mike is probably NDA'd, or maybe paid, to not
tell.


Hello John,
The "problem" caused when switching between the simulation type while
using the standard dialog has been implemented years ago by Mike - an
extra editor for every type of command line. There is an easy
workaround. Make seperate SPICE-directives for each type of simulation
which you need and make all to comments. Then make only the one you need
to a SPICE-directive.

I usually use a directive block with a comment in the first line, e.g.

; SIMULATION COMMAND
.tran 1
;.ac blah blah

That way if you right-click on the first line, you don't get the
training-wheels dialogue box for AC, transient, or noise.

Like many of us, Mike's not especially young, so his passing the torch
isn't unexpected. Is there a reason to suppose that he didn't jump, but
got pushed?

Is anyone connected to him on Linkedin, or any other group.

 

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:53:02 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

[snip]

I usually use a directive block with a comment in the first line, e.g.

; SIMULATION COMMAND
.tran 1
;.ac blah blah

That way if you right-click on the first line, you don't get the
training-wheels dialogue box for AC, transient, or noise.

Yep. I have been doing similar, but hadn't twigged that the first-line
comment makes the whole mess go away.

The dialogs for V and I sources don't seem to have this problem. The
syntax for PULSE has changed since IV, though, or rather it doesn't have
defaults for any of the parameters, which broke a lot of my old sims.

PULSE(0 5 1m) would turn on the source after 1ms, with a default rise
time of 1 ns IIRC, and leave it on forever, which was good enough for a
lot of situations. That no longer works.

Like many of us, Mike's not especially young, so his passing the torch
isn't unexpected. Is there a reason to suppose that he didn't jump, but
got pushed?

I met him about two years ago, at a seminar he gave. Which, now it looks
likely there won't be any more, I'm very glad I attended. He didn't seem
on the verge of retirement, quite the opposite. My money would be on
corporate meddling, but we'll probably never know.

 

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:53:02 -0500, Phil Hobbs wrote:

[snip]

I usually use a directive block with a comment in the first line, e.g.

; SIMULATION COMMAND
.tran 1
;.ac blah blah

That way if you right-click on the first line, you don't get the
training-wheels dialogue box for AC, transient, or noise.

Yep. I have been doing similar, but hadn't twigged that the first-line
comment makes the whole mess go away.

The dialogs for V and I sources don't seem to have this problem. The
syntax for PULSE has changed since IV, though, or rather it doesn't have
defaults for any of the parameters, which broke a lot of my old sims.

PULSE(0 5 1m) would turn on the source after 1ms, with a default rise
time of 1 ns IIRC, and leave it on forever, which was good enough for a
lot of situations. That no longer works.

Like many of us, Mike's not especially young, so his passing the torch
isn't unexpected. Is there a reason to suppose that he didn't jump, but
got pushed?

I met him about two years ago, at a seminar he gave. Which, now it looks
likely there won't be any more, I'm very glad I attended. He didn't seem
on the verge of retirement, quite the opposite. My money would be on
corporate meddling, but we'll probably never know.

 

[Brian Howie]

On 06/03/2020 00:56, Michael Terrell wrote:

Is anyone connected to him on Linkedin, or any other group.

It says on his profile:-

"Best known as the author of LTspice, but has an idea for a better
simulator in mind."

Maybe he's off to do that.

I'm not connected to him. Someone else I know is.

Brian

--
Brian

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Klaus Kragelund]

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 10:07:18 PM UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:53:21 -0800, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2020-03-04 19:19, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-5, Simon S Aysdie
wrote:
"This does not bode well for the future of LTspice now that Mike
Engelhardt has parted ways with Analog Devices."---analog spiceman


https://groups.io/g/LTspice/topic/cloud_over_ltspice/71467233

Time will tell. I don't know how ADI views LTspice. It's a free
tool that likely provides only a minimum return. Maybe they will
find someone else to take it over. Or maybe they will allow it to
continue without much further effort.


"Minimum return"? That sure would be a very short-sighted view and a
major marketing blunder. For me and many other engineers LTSpice is the
core reason why we use rather expensive switcher chips from the former
LTC and now AD.

Exactly. We use LTC parts because the models work.


We do not use and have never used LTC parts. Simply way too expensive

The models from other manufactors also work

Cheers

Klaus