SuperSpice and new component

Mike Engelhardt · Mar 20, 2005

Larry,

Actually, LTspice seems to be getting slightly better,
but is a board level simulator. If that's you're purpose,
then fine. If you're doing IC's, it will soon disappoint.

It still doesn't seem to be able to handle simple hspice
models for resistors and capacitors. (specified by w/l).
These are simple things, but not needed for board level
work.

I have people upgrading from hspice to LTspice to for IC
design. For accuracy.

--Mike

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:07:39 GMT, "Napolean Engelhardt"
<nospam@spam.org> wrote:

Larry,

Actually, LTspice seems to be getting slightly better,
but is a board level simulator. If that's you're purpose,
then fine. If you're doing IC's, it will soon disappoint.

It still doesn't seem to be able to handle simple hspice
models for resistors and capacitors. (specified by w/l).
These are simple things, but not needed for board level
work.

I have people upgrading from hspice to LTspice to for IC
design. For accuracy.

in your dreams.

Jim Thompson · Mar 21, 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:13:05 -0800, ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:07:39 GMT, "Napolean Engelhardt"
nospam@spam.org> wrote:

Larry,

Actually, LTspice seems to be getting slightly better,
but is a board level simulator. If that's you're purpose,
then fine. If you're doing IC's, it will soon disappoint.

It still doesn't seem to be able to handle simple hspice
models for resistors and capacitors. (specified by w/l).
These are simple things, but not needed for board level
work.

I have people upgrading from hspice to LTspice to for IC
design. For accuracy.

in your dreams.

ldg, You harp about things that you know not about. LTSpice can run
ANY netlist... you're just too much the amateur to understand how.

If only Mike would make his simulation engine talk to my venerable old
MicroSim Schematics he'd likely have a convert.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Helmut Sennewald · Mar 21, 2005

"ldg" <asfd@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:tqms31hmn7iup88ocljfv8b97vf9mosgo5@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:23:13 -0700, Jim Dynamite
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

dg, You harp about things that you know not about. LTSpice can run
ANY netlist... you're just too much the amateur to understand how.

Really?

Didn't know I was harping. What things are you worried about? Just
the parts about devices?

I said:
o LTspice can't handle resistor and capacitors specified with w/l and
models. (It can actually run resistors this way with various error
messages, but it's undocumented.) You can use undocumented features
if you like. I usually choose not to.

I have run circuits in ltspice with resistors to use the graphics, but
always have checked the results with other simulators. I like using
multiple simulators anyway as a cross check so this isn't unusual. I
don't like seeing the error messages LTspice gives with these models.

Caps don't seem to work at all specified this way, but aren't supposed
to:

Syntax: Cnnn n1 n2 <capacitance> [ic=<value>]
+ [Rser=<value>] [Lser=<value>] [Rpar=<value>]

+ [Cpar=<value>] [m=<value>]
+ [RLshunt=<value>]

**********

LTSPICE test
*********************************************************
.model pp c cox=9e-04 capsw=2.5e-11 del=0.045e-6
+ tref=25 tc1=22e-6 tc2=0.0

*********************************************************

V1 1 0 pulse(0 5 5u 1n 1n 1)
R1 1 2 1e5
C1 2 0 5p m=1
R3 1 3 1e5
C3 3 0 PP W=33.33U L=33.33U M=5
*c3 3 0 1p m=5
.tran 1u 15u

.end

*********************************************************

Perhaps you can show me how to run this netlist in LTspice? It will
run in smartspice just fine. I guess it literally "runs" in
LTspice, but seems to give the wrong answer when the cap is specified
by w/l and uses a typical foundry model.

A lot of this is preference. I did my own layouts for years and now
hire others to do it. I've found it more accurate to design resistors
and capacitors myself rather than giving the layout person so much
leeway by specifying values. I also use the foundry specified models
for these devices during simulation.

I'd be interested in how a professional organizes their workflow. How
about teaching me a few things? As I recall you use the old Microsim
schematic capture for layout and simulate in pspice. Is this the
perfect solution (and we should all copy) or do you do this for some
other reason? Do you do your own layout? What tools do you use?

o No M= on Bipolars?

**********
Symbol Names: NPN, PNP, NPN2, PNP2

Syntax: Qxxx Collector Base Emitter [Substrate Node] model [area]
+ [off] [IC=<Vbe, Vce>] [temp=<T>]

**********

I don't see it in the documentation. It may by now be an undocumented
feature and I haven't tried this lately.

Again, you're free to draw as many parallel devices and work-arounds
as you like. I'm trying to avoid this.

Thanks for any professional advice

Regards,
Larry

Hello Larry,
the multiplier for Q is now in the LTspice documentation and it's
implemeted.
I wonder why it is exactly the same text as you posted.

---- From the manual -------

Q. Bipolar transistor

Symbol Names: NPN, PNP, NPN2, PNP2

Syntax: Qxxx Collector Base Emitter [Substrate Node] model [area]
+ [off] [IC=<Vbe, Vce>] [temp=<T>]

---- End ----

To all here,
don't make personal attacks. It doesn't help the technical discussions.

Best Regards,
Helmut

PS: I am not an employee off Linear Technology.

Useful links:

LTspice/SwitcherCAD: www.linear.com

User group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LTspice/
I am one of the two moderators of this group.

Pera Mitic · Mar 21, 2005

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:58:11 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

orangeKDS@mail.ru wrote:
it works!! )
where do I set how many digits of precision is needed?

Not sure what you mean by this. The calculation itself always uses the
full range that the compiler supports, which is something like 12 digits
of accuracy. This never need setting. You can change the number of
digits displayed by clicking on the graph and going to the Options/misc
tab. The default is usually quite adequate.

I see, ok

but i have another problem now: convergence

(
I have found in manual that you could set initial guess for some
voltages and currents that helps iteration process.

.NODESET: Specify Initial Node Voltage Guesses
4.2.1. .NODESET: Specify Initial Node Voltage Guesses
General form:
.NODESET V(NODNUM)=VAL V(NODNUM)=VAL ...

where do I enter this in superspice?
(I'm hoping that guessing will help iteration)

I've got 19 of those nonlinear components we talked about (I=const/V).
With smaller circuits (12 of them), everything is ok

All I need is operating point analysis and for relativelty large
voltages (~30V) and currents (~1A)

Pera Mitic · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:22:38 +0100, Pera Mitic <orangeami@mail.ru>
wrote:

I made a mistake, there are 29 of them. When I remove just 3, it
works. Maybe that means its not possible in reality to supply all of
them?

I need one more thing (less important): is it possible somehow to set
values of all resistors to =const*R
?
(I have to calculate resistors, for eg. R1=150m *0.00528 Ohm/m
it would be a lot easier to simply enter meters and let your program
calculate resistance)

--
Qmnon fgr ebg-binyv

Ken Smith · Mar 21, 2005

In article <9rbr3156lgmhjsde20broe064ghd6ih7i1@4ax.com>,
ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

Ltspice really does run well under wine. I was impressed. I didn't
do benchmarks, so have no way of knowing at this point how the extra
overhead might affect a long simulation.

I think you will find that the extra overhead of running it under Windows
(at least Win98) makes it run only a little slower than it does using
wine. Is this what you mean?

[...]

arranged them differently? If true it makes one wonder if the word
duh means anything to these folks. Then again, why is it some vendors
seem to be able to write distro independent software for linux and
while others can't?

Some companies have good programmers and others don't. In some cases, it
isn't that the software will not work just fine on some other system, it
just that the maker only tests it on one version and makes their install
script test for that specific version.

I use SuSE to run "dosemu" to run the DOS Orcad. I had troubles with DOS
orcad running dos windows on Windows machines. So far there has been no
problem under dosemu. Unlike windows, xdosemu allows the DOS window to be
resized etc.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Jim Thompson · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:19:12 -0800, ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:57:04 +0100, "Helmut Sennewald"
HelmutSennewald@t-online.de> wrote:

Hello Larry,
the multiplier for Q is now in the LTspice documentation and it's
implemeted.
I wonder why it is exactly the same text as you posted.

---- From the manual -------

Q. Bipolar transistor

Symbol Names: NPN, PNP, NPN2, PNP2

Syntax: Qxxx Collector Base Emitter [Substrate Node] model [area]
+ [off] [IC=<Vbe, Vce>] [temp=<T>]

Thanks Helmut,

This is very useful to know. You say it is in the LTspice
documentation, but where? I know I'm needing better glasses, but I'm
having trouble finding the [M=<M>] in the above text. Is there other
documentation posted for this simulator other than the help file?

Like I said, LTspice keeps getting better

Regards,
Larry

"[area]" is a number, it IS NOT SPECIFIED as M=, except in
non-standard-conforming shit-for-brains simulators.

If you think HSpice is a good simulator you must be awfully young, or
substantially isolated from the real world ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <9rbr3156lgmhjsde20broe064ghd6ih7i1@4ax.com>,
ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Ltspice really does run well under wine. I was impressed. I didn't
do benchmarks, so have no way of knowing at this point how the extra
overhead might affect a long simulation.

I think you will find that the extra overhead of running it under Windows
(at least Win98) makes it run only a little slower than it does using
wine. Is this what you mean?

Actually, I was wondering how wine itself works as an emulator. I'm
supposing it adds another layer between the application and the
hardware and would incur some overhead. Is this not the case?

I sometimes find I have to run sims that take days. In these cases,
speed counts.

[...]
arranged them differently? If true it makes one wonder if the word
duh means anything to these folks. Then again, why is it some vendors
seem to be able to write distro independent software for linux and
while others can't?

Some companies have good programmers and others don't. In some cases, it
isn't that the software will not work just fine on some other system, it
just that the maker only tests it on one version and makes their install
script test for that specific version.

So you have to solve the problem caused by the various distro vendors
by writing different install scripts? I believe there actually is an
attempt to solve this problem by normalizing the libraries so 3rd
party software can always find them. This seems like a better
solution, but so far the various vendors haven't complied. Redhat
probably thinks their user base is "captured" by the way they have
these libraries arranged. The other vendors apparently refuse to
follow Redhat.

I use SuSE to run "dosemu" to run the DOS Orcad. I had troubles with DOS
orcad running dos windows on Windows machines. So far there has been no
problem under dosemu. Unlike windows, xdosemu allows the DOS window to be
resized etc.

I'll have to look at this - thanks!

One of the issues with switching to linux is that 3rd party software
vendors seem to not want to port their code to it. Nero did recently
and has been taking flack because their code is proprietary. If the
linux community wants linux to grow, they should encourage such
things. It also means they should take steps to ensure easy
operability between distros I think.

So far I've tried Fedora, Xandros, and SuSE. SuSE seemed to set up
the hardware more easily, though Xandros was also very good. Using a
memory stick on Fedora meant creating a special mount directory and
going through that process. SuSE and Xandros seemed to just recognize
a memory stick automatically. Only Xandros automatically set up Samba
so that it would function on my lan with win2k machines.

Regards,
Larry

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:13:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

Sure it can. In most Spices, it's done with subcircuits...

xR node1 node2 <stray nodes> ModelName Params: L=100u W=2u M=4

I used to do such things when I used pspice. It causes you to look
for ways around its limitations. Unless doing a subcircuit adds
accuracy to the simulation, it's difficult for me to understand how
doing this is better.

Once in a while I use a capacitor symbol, for instance, that calls a
subcircuit to add stray to ground. This stray is constantly present
in an IC and if you don't account for it, it can cause real problems.
It isn't needed all the time, so I just change the pointer to another
symbol in another directory and it netlists out normally.

<snip>
Done the same way as R's...

xC node1 node2 <stray nodes> ModelName Params: L=100u W=20u (Some
nutcases use an M here, I don't, it's confusing... for segmented R's I
may adopt "S")

***********

It's less confusing to place the same capacitor over and over again?
If you say so.

Lets say you were drawing a 6 bit switched capacitor mdac. This
means you have to draw 1,2,4,8,16,and 32 cap arrays (in subcircuits
perhaps?). Or you could do one of your workarounds and create the
m=<M> function yourself I suppose. Then you'd have to figure out how
to do an lvs netlist for layout. You also could simply make the caps
sequentially larger, but I know you wouldn't do that because of
matching issues and the chance of confusing the layout person.

In any case, if I have a choice of simply adding m=32 on a cap, I'll
do this instead. If the schematic capture supports iterated
instances, I've also created these arrays by adding the appropriate
instance name on the device. C[0:31]

Regards,
Larry

"nutcase"

Jim Thompson · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:03:38 -0800, ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:13:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

Sure it can. In most Spices, it's done with subcircuits...

xR node1 node2 <stray nodes> ModelName Params: L=100u W=2u M=4

I used to do such things when I used pspice. It causes you to look
for ways around its limitations. Unless doing a subcircuit adds
accuracy to the simulation, it's difficult for me to understand how
doing this is better.

A "resistor" is a NATIVE Spice device. If it has more than two
terminals, or has parameters, it's a "subcircuit".

Once in a while I use a capacitor symbol, for instance, that calls a
subcircuit to add stray to ground. This stray is constantly present
in an IC and if you don't account for it, it can cause real problems.
It isn't needed all the time, so I just change the pointer to another
symbol in another directory and it netlists out normally.

Since I have 100's of clients and 100's of models, I create my own
symbol set with Templates appropriate to the process.

For instance I don't just place an NMOS device, I place an XFAB-NMOS,
so that its strays are properly computed per the process.

snip
Done the same way as R's...

xC node1 node2 <stray nodes> ModelName Params: L=100u W=20u (Some
nutcases use an M here, I don't, it's confusing... for segmented R's I
may adopt "S")

***********

It's less confusing to place the same capacitor over and over again?

Sorry, I went back and placed the modifier after the wrong device. I
use M= on capacitors all the time. I have so many different types of
capacitors (in silicon) that I probably have 20 different symbol
types.

I just find M= for resistors confusing... parallel?? or serial??

If you say so.

Lets say you were drawing a 6 bit switched capacitor mdac. This
means you have to draw 1,2,4,8,16,and 32 cap arrays (in subcircuits
perhaps?). Or you could do one of your workarounds and create the
m=<M> function yourself I suppose. Then you'd have to figure out how
to do an lvs netlist for layout.

Naaaah! You missed the BEAUTY of my schematic capture. The
simulation TEMPLATE and the LVS TEMPLATE are different.

For instance, MOS devices, in the LVS netlist have no AD, AS, PD, PS,
etc., but do in the simulation netlist.

You also could simply make the caps
sequentially larger, but I know you wouldn't do that because of
matching issues and the chance of confusing the layout person.

In any case, if I have a choice of simply adding m=32 on a cap, I'll
do this instead. If the schematic capture supports iterated
instances, I've also created these arrays by adding the appropriate
instance name on the device. C[0:31]

I can do that too, but generally limit such notation to buses.

Regards,
Larry

"nutcase"

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:21:57 -0800, ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:44:34 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

"[area]" is a number, it IS NOT SPECIFIED as M=, except in
non-standard-conforming shit-for-brains simulators.

Really? How interesting. It's not an accepted spice "lexicon"?

Nope. Get out a 2G6 or 3F5 manual.

Since Helmut says this has been implemented in LTspice now, this
simulator also is bad?

No. Knowing Mikey, I would bet the farm that he's implemented ANY
variation of the scheme, to allow netlists from any source.

So using a 6 bit dac example again, you wouldn't weight the
transistors 1,2,4,8,16,32? Or you would just place 64 transistors?

I'd just place the number after the ModelName per the standard. No M=
called for.

Perhaps you'd write a subcircuit to create the M= function yourself?
Or maybe you'd try to make the transistors physically larger so the
current densities would match?

The dacs I've done seemed to be help greatly by doing these arrays.
It also seemed to me that if you want things to match they should be
the same, hence the arrays. Using M= greatly simplifies this.

Regards,
Larry

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:35:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'd just place the number after the ModelName per the standard. No M=
called for.

So you have different models for different sized devices?

Jim Thompson · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:50:00 -0800, ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:35:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'd just place the number after the ModelName per the standard. No M=
called for.

So you have different models for different sized devices?

What part of "place the NUMBER after the ModelName per the standard"
do you have a problem with?

Q1 C B E [SUB} ModelName 5 <<<<----

Do you get it yet ?

"Different sized" is a different game than "area".

"area" just creates multiple instances (paralleled devices).

"Different sized" implies different emitter size, or layout strategy.
These have different models, for instance....

..MODEL ab05a npn
[snip]
..MODEL ab05ai npn
[snip]
..MODEL ab16ai npn
[snip]
..MODEL ab1a npn
[snip]
..MODEL ab1ai npn
[snip]
..MODEL ab2a npn
[snip]
..MODEL ab2ai npn
[snip]
..MODEL ab4ai npn

etc....

Keith will probably recognize these names of a MAJOR semiconductor
house ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Chuck Harris · Mar 21, 2005

ldg wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <9rbr3156lgmhjsde20broe064ghd6ih7i1@4ax.com>,
ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]

Ltspice really does run well under wine. I was impressed. I didn't
do benchmarks, so have no way of knowing at this point how the extra
overhead might affect a long simulation.

I think you will find that the extra overhead of running it under Windows
(at least Win98) makes it run only a little slower than it does using
wine. Is this what you mean?

Actually, I was wondering how wine itself works as an emulator.

The acronym for Wine is: <W>ine <I>s <N>ot an <E>mulator

Wine is an applications interface for windows code that runs under
x86 based linux systems. Just like 'doze 98 is an applications
interface for windows code that runs under DOS.

I'm

supposing it adds another layer between the application and the
hardware and would incur some overhead. Is this not the case?

No more so than the layer between windoes and dos. The underlying
operating system, linux, is a whole bunch more efficient than the
windows/dos mess.

-Chuck

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:12:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:35:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'd just place the number after the ModelName per the standard. No M=
called for.

So you have different models for different sized devices?

What part of "place the NUMBER after the ModelName per the standard"
do you have a problem with?

Q1 C B E [SUB} ModelName 5 <<<<----

Do you get it yet ?

I misread your post. Sorry. I see that you're using <area> as a
multiplier.

This spice "lexicon" really isn't such a good standard, is it? To me
it would be better to have one syntax for a multiplier that can be
used across the devices. Hspice and smartspice seem to have settled
on m= for this. In fact, multiples are calculated by multiplying
area*m with 1 being the default for both.

If I could summarize, so far your professional approach seems to be
using subcircuits to get around Pspice simulator issues which you
justify the need for by pointing out that the original spice didn't
have more functionality anyway? Or did I miss something?

Many (maybe all?) of these work-arounds simply aren't needed anymore
and are things I used for years, then rejected when a simpler approach
became available. Some call this progress. Others call it an
improper spice lexicon or some such thing.

You also seem to take great pride in creating all of these pspice
compatible model files from the original foundry files. I prefer not
to edit the foundry given model files at all and treat these files as
"gold". It also makes it much simpler to incorporate updates.

LTspice parses the foundry models files without all the modifications,
so it would be preferable to your approach I'd think.

Regards,
Larry

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:57:04 +0100, "Helmut Sennewald"
<HelmutSennewald@t-online.de> wrote:

Hello Larry,
the multiplier for Q is now in the LTspice documentation and it's
implemeted.
I wonder why it is exactly the same text as you posted.

---- From the manual -------

Q. Bipolar transistor

Symbol Names: NPN, PNP, NPN2, PNP2

Syntax: Qxxx Collector Base Emitter [Substrate Node] model [area]
+ [off] [IC=<Vbe, Vce>] [temp=<T>]

---- End ----

Hi Helmut,

Is [area] the multiplier you were referring to? Sorry if I
misunderstood your post.

I've gotten used to using m= in Smartspice for all devices. I guess I
like the uniformity.

Regards,
Larry

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:12:38 -0500, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

Actually, I was wondering how wine itself works as an emulator.

The acronym for Wine is: <W>ine <I>s <N>ot an <E>mulator

Ha! Good to know ...

There must be a lot of booze and good natured humor coming up with
some of these names.

Wine is an applications interface for windows code that runs under
x86 based linux systems. Just like 'doze 98 is an applications
interface for windows code that runs under DOS.

I'm
supposing it adds another layer between the application and the
hardware and would incur some overhead. Is this not the case?

No more so than the layer between windoes and dos. The underlying
operating system, linux, is a whole bunch more efficient than the
windows/dos mess.

I'm hoping to transition to linux on all my machines, but first I
guess I have to jump through the Redhat hoop.

Thanks for the info!

Regards,
Larry

ldg · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:07:56 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

Some companies have good programmers and others don't. In some cases, it
isn't that the software will not work just fine on some other system, it
just that the maker only tests it on one version and makes their install
script test for that specific version

Btw, this is the linux file system standard I believe they're trying
to implement:

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/

Regards,
Larry

Jim Thompson · Mar 21, 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:39:28 -0800, ldg <asfd@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:12:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:35:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'd just place the number after the ModelName per the standard. No M=
called for.

So you have different models for different sized devices?

What part of "place the NUMBER after the ModelName per the standard"
do you have a problem with?

Q1 C B E [SUB} ModelName 5 <<<<----

Do you get it yet ?

I misread your post. Sorry. I see that you're using <area> as a
multiplier.

That is the Spice "Standard"

This spice "lexicon" really isn't such a good standard, is it? To me
it would be better to have one syntax for a multiplier that can be
used across the devices. Hspice and smartspice seem to have settled
on m= for this. In fact, multiples are calculated by multiplying
area*m with 1 being the default for both.

To those of us who stopped netlisting by-hand maybe 20 years ago, this
is no longer an issue... the symbol TEMPLATE does all the work.

If I could summarize, so far your professional approach seems to be
using subcircuits to get around Pspice simulator issues which you
justify the need for by pointing out that the original spice didn't
have more functionality anyway? Or did I miss something?

You've missed a lot. There are a limited number of NATIVE DEVICES is
Spice, all else are subcircuits.

Many (maybe all?) of these work-arounds simply aren't needed anymore
and are things I used for years, then rejected when a simpler approach
became available. Some call this progress. Others call it an
improper spice lexicon or some such thing.

I call it "head-up-the ass syndrome". You are really so clueless I
might suppose your father is Fred Bloggs ;-)

You also seem to take great pride in creating all of these pspice
compatible model files from the original foundry files. I prefer not
to edit the foundry given model files at all and treat these files as
"gold". It also makes it much simpler to incorporate updates.

Excuse me? What makes you think I edit the original foundry files?

LTspice parses the foundry models files without all the modifications,
so it would be preferable to your approach I'd think.

Regards,
Larry

I really am tiring of trying to help what appears to be a student,
only to have them turn on me, implying I know nothing.

If you're on this side of the pond you are so ignorant you must be a
Democrat.

Other side of pond, you must be a relative of Bemelman.

You're definitely a fookin' amateur ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

SuperSpice and new component

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

ldg

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Helmut Sennewald

Guest

Pera Mitic

Guest

Pera Mitic

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

ldg

Guest

ldg

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

ldg

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

ldg

Guest

ldg

Guest

ldg

Guest

ldg

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor