¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...


 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Hi Tony,

?

??????????????? Thanks much for your detailed reply. (I don¡¯t have an FB account either.)

?

??????????????? I¡¯ll drop the matter unless someone else replies positively.

?

Regards,

?

Chris

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Casey
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 1:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LTspice] Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...

?

I think a social media campaign would achieve little, except maybe get you elevated to ignore status. A lot of engineers don't even have a FB account. I don't. I neither have the time nor the inclination.

The current LTspice dev' team established communication channels with this group some while ago. This user group is almost certainly the largest LTspice interest (lobby) group on the planet - about 70,000 (all time) members at last count, although only minority are currently active. No other SPICE interest group is within a magnitude of that, and is never likely to be. In fact, LTspice ranks 2nd in all of the publicly listed groups on groups.io, behind groups.io/updates in term of popularity.

Beyond mild curiosity, I have no desire or intention to use any other SPICE tool than LTspice. I have invested way too much time and effort into it. At the moment, it beats the crap out of any other similar tool (IMHO). My desire is that it retains that position. LTspice is great tool. Could it be better? Of course. When operational program bugs get reported, they usually get fixed - quickly, if serious. Even when Mike was in sole charge, some reports were acted upon almost by return of email. Others plunged into a black void.

I realise that the standard libraries situation irritates some people more than others. As far as ADI are concerned, repairs are likely to be prioritised according to the impact on sales. Library goof-ups have caused a number of their /examples/Applications schematics (the ones featuring their own premium parts) to fail, as models have been pulled without updating the schematics that call them. Once realised, that must have caused some consternation, and they have been focussed on fixing those schematics.

I whinge about the standard libraries because I feel like I should. Does it irritate me that they are a mess? Yes. Do I lose sleepover it? No. If you want to use a particular device in an important project, you can keep a verified model in your project folder and make sure it's the one that gets used. Am I bothered whether the BC847B from the standard library is from NXP or Rohm? No. Most likely, it doesn't matter for 95% of circuits. If it did, I would make sure I set set aside the one I wanted, making sure it fulfilled my needs, then any future changes in standard.bjt would not affect my important projects.

--
Regards,
Tony

?

On 11/07/2023 18:17, Christopher Paul wrote:

Hi Tony,

?

??????????????? Thanks for your reply.

?

??????????????? An email from a disgruntled individual doesn¡¯t always elicit the desired response, as you¡¯ve found.

?

??????????????? I¡¯m talking about possible efforts from a number of individuals in this group to complain publicly: Twitter, Facebook, comments on an EDN Design idea, things such as that. Proposals for using non-ADI tools for analysis would be included.

?

Regards,

?

Chris

?

Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.