Fine… so (1) there’s an error in the?2SC6144SG sub circuit from On Semi which raises log errors with respect to that sub circuit if all the Qd44vh10 pass transistors are replaced with?2SC6144SG. ?(2) If they are not, then LTspice tells me there’s a missing Qd44vh10 model definition when indeed there isn’t. ?(3) If all pass transistors are Qd44vh10 and the Spice directive in relation to the 2SC6144SG sub circuit is not ‘commented out' in the schematic then LTspice tells me the model statement for Qd44vh10 is missing when it is not. (4) If all pass transistors are Qd44vh10 and the?2SC6144SG subcircuit statement is commented out of operation then all works just fine.?

For (1) the problem is in the log but with no ‘flag' that the log should be checked. ?With (2) and (3) LTspice points me to a problem that doesn’t exist and not to where the problem does exist.?

It took a lot of backtracking to identify that commenting out the?2SC6144SG sub circuit statement solved the problem. Of course then an examination of the material that needed to be commented out was readily done. It might well have been more obscure to identify had the?2SC6144SG sub circuit been one of many included via .inc statements. Better that LTspice actually alerts the user to the problem at hand rather than to an area which is just fine.?

Let’s perhaps end this sidebar regarding the?2SC6144SG sub circuit here. The issue is now fixed / no longer needed. I still have outstanding questions with respect to probing phase for which I would be very grateful of assistance.?

Thanks in advance

Steve

EDIT: ?just saw John’s post. ?The Qd44vh10 model is fine with respect to the device name / model name. ?The problem is with the 2SC816144SG sub circuit statement (with the .endl error noted by Philippe) and that LTspice points to an error with a missing Qd44vh10 model definition rather than an error with the 2SC816144SG sub circuit statement.?