--- In LTspice@..., "jtanalog" <ltlist@...> wrote:
--- In LTspice@..., Andy <Andrew.Ingraham@> wrote:
I think for the most part you answered your own questions.
Is there a secret .option for seting the solver?
Apparently not, as your next line stated:
Help says:
"There is no .option to specify which solver is used, the choice must be
made before the netlist is parsed because the two solvers use different
parsers."
Why not?
Because LTspice needs to parse (read and decode) the netlist in order to
find the .option. By then it is too late to change the parser.
Wouldn't it be better than puting a text on the shematic, saying
"attention: switch to alternate solver for this deck".
It might be nice, yes. But as the LTspice developer says, it can't be done.
I suppose you could suggest to Mike that he re-consider ... to make LTspice
start over from the beginning if it finds an .option to change the solver.
Regards,
Andy
PSpice has not one iota of a problem with that circuit.
Perhaps the problem is the 1N4148 model... was it a full diode model, or the idealism that LTspice uses to speed up switcher simulations?
-Jim Thompson
Hello Jim,
The simulation has been done with a full diode model.
Best regards,
Helmut
