Re: Warning: Multiple definitions of model ...
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýI can't really comment on QSPICE as I haven't tried it. It's not clear how I can. I signed up for access to the beta test, but heard nothing more. I haven't joined the user group, either. But I'm not alone there - only 183 people have, so far. Nevertheless, good luck to them. Having competition is good.As far as the need for speed is concerned: obviously it's not a bad thing, but people obsess too much about it. With crappy models that barely converge, the underlying speed of the simulator is irrelevant, anyway. I suspect people waste more time on fixing mistakes and not simulating the right thing than they can ever gain by using a faster PC or simulator. Please - no more compliments. I must be hard enough to live with already. ? But, thanks. --
Regards, Tony On 12/07/2023 12:27, Francesco wrote:
Tony, I'm with you almost 100%! The only questionable point may be QSPICE. I'm often conflicted between keeping LTspice as the only one, and invest time only there, or trying to spend some effort in checking QSPICE. I think it has some strength against LTspice, but honestly, do we really need it? I think someone like you should take part in the evaluation of this new tool, in case even to decide it does not make sense to shift on it. But I agree, if you feel good with LTspice (as I do), why should you move from it? Nevertheless, the higher speed and some other features of QSPICE are attracting. I think it is still in a preliminary phase, probably too early for one like you to invest time in it. Just thoughts. |
Tony Casey