Prev: No current sense resistor required for MOSFET switch protection
Next: John Larkin = Criminal LIAR
From: Jim Thompson on 7 Apr 2010 23:40
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:50:59 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>MooseFET wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 9:35 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Yes, TINA. But engineers don't want umpteen simulators, they want one.
>>> And LTSpice clearly took the cake, there is nothing that others can do
>>> to undo that. Unless someone furnishes a freebie SW that has nicer
>>> schematic capture with netlisting capability.
>>
>> LTSpice does make a spice netlist. A few of the folks I work with
>> have
>> suggested making a prgram to convert the spice netlist to a PCB layout
>> package version. Is this what you have in mind? If so, maybe I can
>> do
>> something.
>
>
>It's a bit more intricate than that. It would need a real schematic
>editor similar to Orcad or Eagle, part fields, footprint info, and so
>on. It's something LTC really doesn't need so probably never going to
>happen. For example, without footprint info you cannot generate a useful
>netlist for a layouter.

It might be of interest to lurkers here... Tanner Tools can now import
either Microsim/PSpice Schematics (what I use) _or_ OrCAD Capture.

Had a visitation from that bunch a week and a half ago.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: JosephKK on 8 Apr 2010 00:08
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:35:58 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>JosephKK wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:17:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:02:23 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>> <snip>
>>>>> So what's left of the good old AMI Plant? If they bulldozed the only HV
>>>>> fab they had I think ON shot themselves into the foot.
>>>> Naaaah! HV isn't done that way anymore... takes too much chip area.
>>>>
>>> Nah, they could do it. Look here:
>>>
>>> http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/content.do?id=16622
>>>
>>> Then, quote "Let our system architects introduce you to the world of
>>> mixed-signal" while they didn't even bother to answer a lucrative sales
>>> lead I had handed them on a silver platter. Pathetic.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Take a look, for example, at XFAB XC10xx, XDM10, XH035 and XT06
>>>> processes... mixed low and high voltages devices residing on the same
>>>> chip.
>>>>
>>> Yep, they sure are a good company. AFAICT the only one remaining in the
>>> US would be Supertex. In my young buck days we also used Telmos but IIRC
>>> they are long gone.
>>>
>>>>>> And the chip business is showing signs of heating up... overseas...
>>>>>> but US business is pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can't say that. A client will be doing a pretty challenging chip this
>>>>> year, and that's a US company. US-owned as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think of LTC? I don't like they P/E much, a bit high at 24
>>>>> but the fundamentals look pretty good. But that's IMHO only for long
>>>>> term investing.
>>>> Do they offer foundry services ?:-)
>>>>
>>> AFAIK they don't, I was just thinking about IRA investments here. They
>>> do have some really nice HV products. Expensive, but worth it. Plus
>>> nobody can rival the killer advantage they've got: LTSPice. And
>>> absolutely stellar application support people.
>>
>> TI has its own spice variant and a host of tools, too bad they don't
>> support them like Linear does.
>
>
>Yes, TINA. But engineers don't want umpteen simulators, they want one.
>And LTSpice clearly took the cake, there is nothing that others can do
>to undo that.

I am not so enamored with LTspice, the provided models for parts other than
their own and a few select devices they like, to work with their stuff the
user is partly SOL. Importing other model libraries from other manufacturers
is becoming more difficult as the manufacturers are making them harder to
find or no longer present them on the web.

>Unless someone furnishes a freebie SW that has nicer
>schematic capture with netlisting capability.

It is near the best schematic capture i have used, two others i have used beat
it. gEDA and friends has the best chance at displacing it but the schematic
capture is clearly not as good. OTOH it bolts into a rather complete suite.
>
>The worst are canned programs like WebBench. For me it never worked, not
>once. "Cannot be designed ... blah, blah, blah". All in production now :-)
From: MooseFET on 8 Apr 2010 09:53
On Apr 7, 7:50 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> MooseFET wrote:
> > On Apr 7, 9:35 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Yes, TINA. But engineers don't want umpteen simulators, they want one.
> >> And LTSpice clearly took the cake, there is nothing that others can do
> >> to undo that. Unless someone furnishes a freebie SW that has nicer
> >> schematic capture with netlisting capability.
>
> > LTSpice does make a spice netlist.  A few of the folks I work with
> > have
> > suggested making a prgram to convert the spice netlist to a PCB layout
> > package version.  Is this what you have in mind?  If so, maybe I can
> > do
> > something.
>
> It's a bit more intricate than that. It would need a real schematic
> editor similar to Orcad or Eagle, part fields, footprint info, and so
> on. It's something LTC really doesn't need so probably never going to
> happen. For example, without footprint info you cannot generate a useful
> netlist for a layouter.

The methods of doing footprints that I was considering are:

(1)
The footprints appear as "active comments" on the schematic.
This would mean that every part would have to have a comment in a
magic form such as "& Q21 TO-220UP" next to it. The comment
would have to match the pattern names in the layout package.

(2)
The footprint information would be in a spread sheet and turned
into a CSV format file to be included into the netlist converters
input.

(3)
The parts in the schematic get the company part number on them
The process would be like a mixture of (1) and (2)


I also considered making a pair of converters to go back and
forth between LTspice and GEDA. This would convert the schematic
between formats such that A -> B -> A gives back exactly what
you started with in A.


>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
> "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
> Use another domain or send PM.

From: Joerg on 8 Apr 2010 13:18
JosephKK wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:35:58 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> JosephKK wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:17:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:02:23 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> So what's left of the good old AMI Plant? If they bulldozed the only HV
>>>>>> fab they had I think ON shot themselves into the foot.
>>>>> Naaaah! HV isn't done that way anymore... takes too much chip area.
>>>>>
>>>> Nah, they could do it. Look here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/content.do?id=16622
>>>>
>>>> Then, quote "Let our system architects introduce you to the world of
>>>> mixed-signal" while they didn't even bother to answer a lucrative sales
>>>> lead I had handed them on a silver platter. Pathetic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Take a look, for example, at XFAB XC10xx, XDM10, XH035 and XT06
>>>>> processes... mixed low and high voltages devices residing on the same
>>>>> chip.
>>>>>
>>>> Yep, they sure are a good company. AFAICT the only one remaining in the
>>>> US would be Supertex. In my young buck days we also used Telmos but IIRC
>>>> they are long gone.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And the chip business is showing signs of heating up... overseas...
>>>>>>> but US business is pathetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't say that. A client will be doing a pretty challenging chip this
>>>>>> year, and that's a US company. US-owned as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think of LTC? I don't like they P/E much, a bit high at 24
>>>>>> but the fundamentals look pretty good. But that's IMHO only for long
>>>>>> term investing.
>>>>> Do they offer foundry services ?:-)
>>>>>
>>>> AFAIK they don't, I was just thinking about IRA investments here. They
>>>> do have some really nice HV products. Expensive, but worth it. Plus
>>>> nobody can rival the killer advantage they've got: LTSPice. And
>>>> absolutely stellar application support people.
>>> TI has its own spice variant and a host of tools, too bad they don't
>>> support them like Linear does.
>>
>> Yes, TINA. But engineers don't want umpteen simulators, they want one.
>> And LTSpice clearly took the cake, there is nothing that others can do
>> to undo that.
>
> I am not so enamored with LTspice, the provided models for parts other than
> their own and a few select devices they like, to work with their stuff the
> user is partly SOL. Importing other model libraries from other manufacturers
> is becoming more difficult as the manufacturers are making them harder to
> find or no longer present them on the web.
>

I lean towards mfgs who do furnish SPICE models (NXP RF guys, are ya
lis'nin?). Never had a real problem plugging them into LTSpice, mostly
as an include file because its library handling is a bit iffy IMHO. Plus
then I can send the directory to clients and know it'll run there
without them scrambling for models.


>> Unless someone furnishes a freebie SW that has nicer
>> schematic capture with netlisting capability.
>
> It is near the best schematic capture i have used, two others i have used beat
> it. gEDA and friends has the best chance at displacing it but the schematic
> capture is clearly not as good. OTOH it bolts into a rather complete suite.


You mean TINA is the best?

gEDA I have tried out, did not like it because it can't properly handle
multi-part refdeses. So I'll keep using Eagle. That's really close to
perfect _if_ it had a hierachical sheet structure. No simulator link though.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
From: JosephKK on 9 Apr 2010 05:43
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:18:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>JosephKK wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:35:58 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> JosephKK wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:17:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:02:23 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> So what's left of the good old AMI Plant? If they bulldozed the only HV
>>>>>>> fab they had I think ON shot themselves into the foot.
>>>>>> Naaaah! HV isn't done that way anymore... takes too much chip area.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, they could do it. Look here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/content.do?id=16622
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, quote "Let our system architects introduce you to the world of
>>>>> mixed-signal" while they didn't even bother to answer a lucrative sales
>>>>> lead I had handed them on a silver platter. Pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a look, for example, at XFAB XC10xx, XDM10, XH035 and XT06
>>>>>> processes... mixed low and high voltages devices residing on the same
>>>>>> chip.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, they sure are a good company. AFAICT the only one remaining in the
>>>>> US would be Supertex. In my young buck days we also used Telmos but IIRC
>>>>> they are long gone.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the chip business is showing signs of heating up... overseas...
>>>>>>>> but US business is pathetic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't say that. A client will be doing a pretty challenging chip this
>>>>>>> year, and that's a US company. US-owned as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think of LTC? I don't like they P/E much, a bit high at 24
>>>>>>> but the fundamentals look pretty good. But that's IMHO only for long
>>>>>>> term investing.
>>>>>> Do they offer foundry services ?:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK they don't, I was just thinking about IRA investments here. They
>>>>> do have some really nice HV products. Expensive, but worth it. Plus
>>>>> nobody can rival the killer advantage they've got: LTSPice. And
>>>>> absolutely stellar application support people.
>>>> TI has its own spice variant and a host of tools, too bad they don't
>>>> support them like Linear does.
>>>
>>> Yes, TINA. But engineers don't want umpteen simulators, they want one.
>>> And LTSpice clearly took the cake, there is nothing that others can do
>>> to undo that.
>>
>> I am not so enamored with LTspice, the provided models for parts other than
>> their own and a few select devices they like, to work with their stuff the
>> user is partly SOL. Importing other model libraries from other manufacturers
>> is becoming more difficult as the manufacturers are making them harder to
>> find or no longer present them on the web.
>>
>
>I lean towards mfgs who do furnish SPICE models (NXP RF guys, are ya
>lis'nin?). Never had a real problem plugging them into LTSpice, mostly
>as an include file because its library handling is a bit iffy IMHO. Plus
>then I can send the directory to clients and know it'll run there
>without them scrambling for models.
>
I can handle doing devices one'sy-two'sy, it is whole libraries that i am after.
for transistors it is not much of an issue, the symbol(s) is/are standard.
Even the simple analog building blocks are ok, more complex blocks is another matter.
>
>>> Unless someone furnishes a freebie SW that has nicer
>>> schematic capture with netlisting capability.
>>
>> It is near the best schematic capture i have used, two others i have used beat
>> it. gEDA and friends has the best chance at displacing it but the schematic
>> capture is clearly not as good. OTOH it bolts into a rather complete suite.
>
>
>You mean TINA is the best?

No, i would have said so. My favorites are DOS TangoSchematic and DOS CirCad.
>
>gEDA I have tried out, did not like it because it can't properly handle
>multi-part refdeses. So I'll keep using Eagle. That's really close to
>perfect _if_ it had a hierachical sheet structure. No simulator link though.
>
I may have to try EAGLE, the DRM flap bothers me far more than the lack of
heirarchy. In the meantime i am tinkering with gEDA.
>[...]
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: No current sense resistor required for MOSFET switch protection
Next: John Larkin = Criminal LIAR