On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 01:44 PM, Bell, Dave wrote:
With Compression normal, Window=1024, the raw file was >206MB.
With Window=0, the raw file is >710MB.
Both cases took almost exactly the same time, to my surprise, 340 seconds.
That should not surprise you.
?
The two simulations are identical.? The only time difference is the time needed to write the data to a file, 710MB versus 206MB, which is not that different.? There is a slight computational difference when LTspice decides whether or not to save a point, but that is usually small.
?
So it mostly boils down to the overhead caused by your computer's file system and the (now unlikely) possibility that it has rotating parts.
?
Of course this depends on the complexity of the circuit and things like nonlinearities.? If the simulation itself is trivial, then most of the time would be spent saving data instead of calculating data (simulating), and you would see that difference.
?
Andy
?
|
Directory for custom symbols
My team wants to have a shared directory where all Electrical Engineers can place their symbols and libraries so others can re-use them instead of re-creating it.
?
This is what the help doc says
Search Paths
This panel allows you to enter additional paths than the default to find symbols and libraries. When entering symbol and library search paths, list each directory on it's own line.
This panel also allows you to edit the directory where user-defined discrete component libraries are located, in the field labeled "Location of user.* component library files."
?
Questions:
1. Is the search recursive? I would imagine since the text says "list each directory on its own line" that it is not recursive. However one of my engineers says he has used a nested directory structure for his symbols for years
2. There is one top level to browse a location called "User libraries directory". Is this what I should be using to point to our shared location? If so, why would I need the "Symbol Search Path" and "Library Search Path" boxes that require one directory per line.
3. If someone edited a standard component will it take precedence if it is defined in one of these paths (presumably the "User libraries directory"?
?
Thank you
|
Indeed! There are checks for stress related to many other components¡
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Execute .meas file
?
I suspected something like that, maybe a medical product. But it's still not realistic; other sources of malfunction are more probable.
On 2025-05-20 19:40, Bell, Dave via groups.io wrote:
IF this were a commercial product analysis, I¡¯d tend to agree with that.
In this case, it¡¯s a matter of a deep dive into a space-qualified design, to satisfy Specification requirements.
An application of What-If determination, with tight tolerances on, for example, a circuit¡¯s output to *another* circuit, accounting for component tolerances, powr supply variation,
etc.
?
Dave
?
?
Thank you. Unless you plan to make millions of the product, that universe will remain largely unexplored.
On 2025-05-20 19:16, Bell, Dave via groups.io wrote:
Worst Case (Analysis)
Iterating over a number of components whose values are individually set to minimum tolerance and maximum tolerance in a binary sequence, resulting in 2^n sets of data rolled into a single
.raw file.
Later analyses can run .meas scripts on the saved data to extract query results.
?
Dave
?
?
I have to phrase my question carefully: what? does the two-letter abbreviation mean in the context of electronics?? I am totally baffled by the rest of the sentence, but that is not unusual.
On 2025-05-20 18:43, Bell, Dave via groups.io wrote:
?
This is for one particular WC simulation, a smallish circuit with 9 variables (2**9,+1, 513, executions.)
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
|
I suspected something like that, maybe a
medical product. But it's still not realistic; other sources of
malfunction are more probable.
On 2025-05-20 19:40, Bell, Dave via
groups.io wrote:
IF this were a
commercial product analysis, I¡¯d tend to agree with that.
In this case, it¡¯s
a matter of a deep dive into a space-qualified design, to
satisfy Specification requirements.
An application of
What-If determination, with tight tolerances on, for
example, a circuit¡¯s output to *another* circuit,
accounting for component tolerances, powr supply variation,
etc.
?
Dave
?
?
Thank
you. Unless you plan to make millions of the product, that
universe will remain largely unexplored.
On 2025-05-20 19:16, Bell, Dave via
groups.io wrote:
Worst Case
(Analysis)
Iterating over a
number of components whose values are individually set to
minimum tolerance and maximum tolerance in a binary
sequence, resulting in 2^n sets of data rolled into a
single .raw file.
Later analyses
can run .meas scripts on the saved data to extract query
results.
?
Dave
?
?
I
have to phrase my question carefully: what? does the
two-letter abbreviation mean in the context of
electronics?? I am totally baffled by the rest of the
sentence, but that is not unusual.
On 2025-05-20 18:43, Bell, Dave via
groups.io wrote:
?
This is for one particular WC
simulation, a smallish circuit with 9 variables
(2**9,+1, 513, executions.)
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions
Only If something is true: * as far as we
know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics
*unquestionably - it's religion
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions
Only If something is true: * as far as we
know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics
*unquestionably - it's religion
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only
If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for
certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
|
IF this were a commercial product analysis, I¡¯d tend to agree with that.
In this case, it¡¯s a matter of a deep dive into a space-qualified design, to satisfy Specification requirements.
An application of What-If determination, with tight tolerances on, for example, a circuit¡¯s output to *another* circuit, accounting for component tolerances, powr supply variation,
etc.
?
Dave
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Execute .meas file
?
Thank you. Unless you plan to make millions of the product, that universe will remain largely unexplored.
On 2025-05-20 19:16, Bell, Dave via groups.io wrote:
Worst Case (Analysis)
Iterating over a number of components whose values are individually set to minimum tolerance and maximum tolerance in a binary sequence, resulting in 2^n sets of data rolled into a single
.raw file.
Later analyses can run .meas scripts on the saved data to extract query results.
?
Dave
?
?
I have to phrase my question carefully: what? does the two-letter abbreviation mean in the context of electronics?? I am totally baffled by the rest of the sentence, but that is not unusual.
On 2025-05-20 18:43, Bell, Dave via groups.io wrote:
?
This is for one particular WC simulation, a smallish circuit with 9 variables (2**9,+1, 513, executions.)
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
|
Thank you. Unless you plan to make millions of
the product, that universe will remain largely unexplored.
On 2025-05-20 19:16, Bell, Dave via
groups.io wrote:
Worst Case
(Analysis)
Iterating over a
number of components whose values are individually set to
minimum tolerance and maximum tolerance in a binary
sequence, resulting in 2^n sets of data rolled into a single
.raw file.
Later analyses can
run .meas scripts on the saved data to extract query
results.
?
Dave
?
?
I have
to phrase my question carefully: what? does the two-letter
abbreviation mean in the context of electronics?? I am
totally baffled by the rest of the sentence, but that is not
unusual.
On 2025-05-20 18:43, Bell, Dave via
groups.io wrote:
?
This is for one particular WC
simulation, a smallish circuit with 9 variables (2**9,+1,
513, executions.)
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions
Only If something is true: * as far as we
know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics
*unquestionably - it's religion
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only
If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for
certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
|
Worst Case (Analysis)
Iterating over a number of components whose values are individually set to minimum tolerance and maximum tolerance in a binary sequence, resulting in 2^n sets of data rolled into a single
.raw file.
Later analyses can run .meas scripts on the saved data to extract query results.
?
Dave
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Execute .meas file
?
I have to phrase my question carefully: what? does the two-letter abbreviation mean in the context of electronics?? I am totally baffled by the rest of the sentence, but that is not unusual.
On 2025-05-20 18:43, Bell, Dave via groups.io wrote:
?
This is for one particular WC simulation, a smallish circuit with 9 variables (2**9,+1, 513, executions.)
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
|
I have to phrase my question carefully: what?
does the two-letter abbreviation mean in the context of
electronics?? I am totally baffled by the rest of the sentence,
but that is not unusual.
On 2025-05-20 18:43, Bell, Dave via
groups.io wrote:
?
This is for
one particular WC simulation, a smallish circuit with 9
variables (2**9,+1, 513, executions.)
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only
If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for
certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
|
BTW, for a quick update
?
This is for one particular WC simulation, a smallish circuit with 9 variables (2**9,+1, 513, executions.)
With Compression normal, Window=1024, the raw file was >206MB.
With Window=0, the raw file is >710MB.
Both cases took almost exactly the same
time, to my surprise, 340 seconds.
?
I will probably leave Automatically Delete checked, but before closing a simulation, add a run number, or other code to the Raw file name (leaving the extension alone¡)
?
Dave
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Bell, Dave via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 8:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Execute .meas file
?
Andy, you¡¯re right, across the board.
I do have Automatically Delete raw Files set to avoid accumulating large (sometimes huge) data files that I rarely need to refer to. Most simulations I do are quick to run, or re-run if I do want to dive deeper
into logged data.
?
These WCAs I¡¯m working on are unusual in taking minutes to execute and creating very large outputs. My questions about the process and the responses I¡¯ve received have been leading me to making Save exceptions
for these runs, and learning just which files are required to revisit prior data for new queries.
?
Thanks for your help!
?
Dave
?
?
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 09:56 PM, Bell, Dave wrote:
So, answering my original question, after a complete Run, save (in Settings) the raw file(s), or make a copy, while the simulation is still in the app,
Reloading that .raw file gives access to the large data from a long and multipart simulation.
Dave, I think you are making this more complicated than it is, by doing it that way.
Unless you have your LTspice configured to "Automatically delete .RAW files", uou should never need to make a copy of a .RAW file.? But if you find the need to make a copy, then why delete the original?
The only reason to "Automatically delete .RAW files" is if you never ever want to revisit old simulations.? Otherwise, don't do that.? That setting is in Control Panel/Settings > Operation.
The .RAW file IS your output data!? It is not just a "temporary" file.? It contains all the waveforms and simulated data (except for what little bit goes into the Error Log file), so deleting it seems pointless.? Without that file, you've
lost all your simulated data.
View > Visible Traces re-loads the .RAW file data.? If View > Visible Traces is greyed-out,? then there is no .RAW file to load.? That happens either because
-
You have not run the simulation yet,
-
You deleted the .RAW file,
-
You renamed the .RAW file so the original one essentially does not exist,
-
You moved the .RAW file somewhere else.
Clearly you first have to know what you are doing.? If there's no .RAW file, then there is nothing to load.
LTspice has a setting (in Control Panel/Settings > Waveforms) to save the output files including .RAW in a specific directory instead of the normal one with the schematic, and I am not sure if or how it affects its ability to find and re-open
the .RAW file.? Obviously, if you re-use a schematic filename (e.g., "Draft1", it will overwrite the old .RAW file.? The schematics can be distinct because they were in different folders, but the .RAW files are not because they are all in one big barrel -
with that setting.
Reloading that .raw file gives access to the large data from a long and multipart simulation.
It does.? Reloading it with its schematic is most ideal - for me, anyway - because it allows you to look at its schematic and pick what you want to plot.? But if your only objective is to re-run a .MEAS script and nothing else, then the
only things needed are the .RAW file and the .MEAS scripts.? Yes, you can do that blindly.
|
Re: Syntax error on .MEAS in 24.1.x
As a c programmer and LTspice user, I would never label my variables "A+A". Just saying.
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:59 PM, Tony Casey via groups.io <antoniustrevorum@...> wrote:
OK, I get that it's a potential issue, although it has never arisen
for me. Perhaps changes like this can be mentioned in the LTspice
Change Log, with a note advising of potential backward compatibility
problems? This is a sensitive issue, as it can break production
systems.
I understand the motivation for cleaning up the code, but it comes
with risks.
--
Regards,
Tony
On 20/05/2025 18:17, Mathias Born via
groups.io wrote:
This is an intentional change that removes an ambiguity.
Each measurement name can be used in other .meas expressions.
Suppose you have two measurement names "A" and "A+A". What would
be the meaning of the expression "A+A"?
In short, math operators are not allowed in parameter names.
?
Best Regards,
Mathias
?
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 05:55 PM, Tony Casey wrote:
A new error seems to have crept
into .MEAS directives on the 24.1 branch.
Measurement names are apparently not now allowed to have a
sign character in them, e.g.:
.MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10
.. results in:
I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(37):
syntax error
.MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(38):
syntax error
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This has worked in all previous versions. In the logfile,
normally it would show, e.g.:
tpd+:
t1-t0=1.08114e-08
tpd-: t11-t10=1.09962e-08
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Syntax error on .MEAS in 24.1.x
OK, I get that it's a potential issue, although it has never arisen
for me. Perhaps changes like this can be mentioned in the LTspice
Change Log, with a note advising of potential backward compatibility
problems? This is a sensitive issue, as it can break production
systems.
I understand the motivation for cleaning up the code, but it comes
with risks.
--
Regards,
Tony
On 20/05/2025 18:17, Mathias Born via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
This is an intentional change that removes an ambiguity.
Each measurement name can be used in other .meas expressions.
Suppose you have two measurement names "A" and "A+A". What would
be the meaning of the expression "A+A"?
In short, math operators are not allowed in parameter names.
?
Best Regards,
Mathias
?
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 05:55 PM, Tony Casey wrote:
A new error seems to have crept
into .MEAS directives on the 24.1 branch.
Measurement names are apparently not now allowed to have a
sign character in them, e.g.:
.MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10
.. results in:
I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(37):
syntax error
.MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(38):
syntax error
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This has worked in all previous versions. In the logfile,
normally it would show, e.g.:
tpd+:
t1-t0=1.08114e-08
tpd-: t11-t10=1.09962e-08
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Syntax error on .MEAS in 24.1.x
This is an intentional change that removes an ambiguity.
Each measurement name can be used in other .meas expressions. Suppose you have two measurement names "A" and "A+A". What would be the meaning of the expression "A+A"?
In short, math operators are not allowed in parameter names.
?
Best Regards,
Mathias
?
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 05:55 PM, Tony Casey wrote:
A new error seems to have crept into .MEAS directives on the 24.1 branch. Measurement names are apparently not now allowed to have a sign character in them, e.g.: .MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10.. results in: I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(37): syntax error
.MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(38): syntax error
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This has worked in all previous versions. In the logfile, normally it would show, e.g.:
tpd+: t1-t0=1.08114e-08
tpd-: t11-t10=1.09962e-08
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Syntax error on .MEAS in 24.1.x
A new error seems to have crept into
.MEAS directives on the 24.1 branch.
Measurement names are apparently not now allowed to have a sign
character in them, e.g.:
.MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10
.. results in:
I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(37):
syntax error
.MEAS Tpd+ param T1-T0
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I:\tony\Documents\Simulations\LTspice\Comparator\UniversalComp\Dev\UniversalComp_Test.net(38):
syntax error
.MEAS Tpd- param T11-T10
???????? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This has worked in all previous versions. In the logfile,
normally it would show, e.g.:
tpd+: t1-t0=1.08114e-08
tpd-: t11-t10=1.09962e-08
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Andy, you¡¯re right, across the board.
I do have Automatically Delete raw Files set to avoid accumulating large (sometimes huge) data files that I rarely need to refer to. Most simulations I do are quick to run, or re-run if I do want to dive deeper
into logged data.
?
These WCAs I¡¯m working on are unusual in taking minutes to execute and creating very large outputs. My questions about the process and the responses I¡¯ve received have been leading me to making Save exceptions
for these runs, and learning just which files are required to revisit prior data for new queries.
?
Thanks for your help!
?
Dave
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Andy I via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 6:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [LTspice] Execute .meas file
?
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 09:56 PM, Bell, Dave wrote:
So, answering my original question, after a complete Run, save (in Settings) the raw file(s), or make a copy, while the simulation is still in the app,
Reloading that .raw file gives access to the large data from a long and multipart simulation.
Dave, I think you are making this more complicated than it is, by doing it that way.
Unless you have your LTspice configured to "Automatically delete .RAW files", uou should never need to make a copy of a .RAW file.? But if you find the need to make a copy, then why delete the original?
The only reason to "Automatically delete .RAW files" is if you never ever want to revisit old simulations.? Otherwise, don't do that.? That setting is in Control Panel/Settings > Operation.
The .RAW file IS your output data!? It is not just a "temporary" file.? It contains all the waveforms and simulated data (except for what little bit goes into the Error Log file), so deleting it seems pointless.? Without that file, you've
lost all your simulated data.
View > Visible Traces re-loads the .RAW file data.? If View > Visible Traces is greyed-out,? then there is no .RAW file to load.? That happens either because
-
You have not run the simulation yet,
-
You deleted the .RAW file,
-
You renamed the .RAW file so the original one essentially does not exist,
-
You moved the .RAW file somewhere else.
Clearly you first have to know what you are doing.? If there's no .RAW file, then there is nothing to load.
LTspice has a setting (in Control Panel/Settings > Waveforms) to save the output files including .RAW in a specific directory instead of the normal one with the schematic, and I am not sure if or how it affects its ability to find and re-open
the .RAW file.? Obviously, if you re-use a schematic filename (e.g., "Draft1", it will overwrite the old .RAW file.? The schematics can be distinct because they were in different folders, but the .RAW files are not because they are all in one big barrel -
with that setting.
Reloading that .raw file gives access to the large data from a long and multipart simulation.
It does.? Reloading it with its schematic is most ideal - for me, anyway - because it allows you to look at its schematic and pick what you want to plot.? But if your only objective is to re-run a .MEAS script and nothing else, then the
only things needed are the .RAW file and the .MEAS scripts.? Yes, you can do that blindly.
|
Re: round () function on AC measurements does crash on old versions and just delivers zero at latest version
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 10:55 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
Perhaps we will never know.
?
Perhaps there is a reason involving the math library, though it seems counter-intuitive.
?
Perhaps that is how it was done in other SPICE programs, and LTspice was designed to be compatible with existing syntax.
?
?
|
Re: round () function on AC measurements does crash on old versions and just delivers zero at latest version
From the Help, under Waveform Arithmetic:
The functions Re(x) and Im(x) are available for complex data
and return a complex number with the real part equal to the real
or imaginary part of the argument respectively and the imaginary
part equal to zero.
I wonder why that is so. The zero imaginary part seems useless,
and it prevents, for example, the syntax Re(round(expression))
being used to produce the result that the OP wants.
On 2025-05-20 15:22, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
I don't know if this is related --
?
But mag() returns a complex number in .AC analysis.? Perhaps
round() can only take a real argument.? Giving round() a complex
argument might be the cause of both problems - the crash in
earlier versions, and returning 0 in the latest version.
?
Referring to the Help page, it implies that round(x) was
perhaps able to accept complex arguments, originally.? It is not
listed as one of the exceptions that does not accept complex
data.? Perhaps it had that ability but lost it somewhere along
the way, while LTspice evolved, and nobody reported it, or
someone did but it was not yet taken up as an action item to
fix.? Have you reported it to ADI?
?
By the way, the results you pasted into the message appear to
have included some non-ASCII text (0?¡ã),
which probably did not look like that originally.
?
Andy
?
--
Best wishes John Woodgate RAYLEIGH Essex OOO-Own Opinions Only
If something is true: * as far as we know - it's science *for
certain - it's mathematics *unquestionably - it's religion
|
Re: round () function on AC measurements does crash on old versions and just delivers zero at latest version
I missed that you wrote this:
Also the ASCII character in front of ¡ã looks weired since new version installed.
I thought maybe it appeared when you pasted it into the message.? Is that funny character there in the .LOG file too?
?
I'm thinking the degree character (¡ã) was written as Unicode and that is probably the cause of the errant (?) character in front of it.? But perhaps not.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: round () function on AC measurements does crash on old versions and just delivers zero at latest version
I don't know if this is related --
?
But mag() returns a complex number in .AC analysis.? Perhaps round() can only take a real argument.? Giving round() a complex argument might be the cause of both problems - the crash in earlier versions, and returning 0 in the latest version.
?
Referring to the Help page, it implies that round(x) was perhaps able to accept complex arguments, originally.? It is not listed as one of the exceptions that does not accept complex data.? Perhaps it had that ability but lost it somewhere along the way, while LTspice evolved, and nobody reported it, or someone did but it was not yet taken up as an action item to fix.? Have you reported it to ADI?
?
By the way, the results you pasted into the message appear to have included some non-ASCII text (0?¡ã), which probably did not look like that originally.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: round () function on AC measurements does crash on old versions and just delivers zero at latest version
On 20/05/2025 15:51, oerni via
groups.io wrote:
using round to get better readable results (e.g. mV's with
one further number after the dot) in the measurements does not
work for me in AC measurements while it works fine for TRAN.
?
running .AC the following statements bring the below listed
results
?
.OPTIONS meascplxfmt=polar
.MEAS V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18_mV ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?PARAM
(V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18*1000*10)/10
.MEAS V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18_mV_2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?PARAM
round(mag((V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18*1000*10)/10))
.MEAS AC V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18_mV_3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? PARAM
round(mag((V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18*1000*10)/10))
leads to
v_acomp_max_ic7_p18_mv:
(V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18*1000*10)/10=(24.2389660125,0?¡ã)
v_acomp_max_ic7_p18_mv_2:
round(mag((V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18*1000*10)/10))=(0,0?¡ã)
v_acomp_max_ic7_p18_mv_3:
round(mag((V_ACOMP_max_IC7_p18*1000*10)/10))=(0,0?¡ã)
?
In former versions e.g. 24.0.12 using round() even crashed
and said: this is a bug, please report it.
Now with 24.1.8 it does not crash but reports zero...but
maybe I am doin wrong because I don't get converted (not even
with mag() ) this cartesian numbers to normal values.
Also the ASCII character in front of ¡ã looks weired since new
version installed.
By using round() in .AC analyses, you're requesting the round
operation is performed on a complex number. I'm not sure that is
meaningful. Just because you're using it on the result of a mag()
function doesn't change this, as as mag() still returns a complex
number.
I'm not surprised it doesn't work.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 09:56 PM, Bell, Dave wrote:
So, answering my original question, after a complete Run, save (in Settings) the raw file(s), or make a copy, while the simulation is still in the app,
Reloading that .raw file gives access to the large data from a long and multipart simulation.
Dave, I think you are making this more complicated than it is, by doing it that way.
?
Unless you have your LTspice configured to "Automatically delete .RAW files", uou should never need to make a copy of a .RAW file.? But if you find the need to make a copy, then why delete the original?
?
The only reason to "Automatically delete .RAW files" is if you never ever want to revisit old simulations.? Otherwise, don't do that.? That setting is in Control Panel/Settings > Operation.
?
The .RAW file IS your output data!? It is not just a "temporary" file.? It contains all the waveforms and simulated data (except for what little bit goes into the Error Log file), so deleting it seems pointless.? Without that file, you've lost all your simulated data.
?
View > Visible Traces re-loads the .RAW file data.? If View > Visible Traces is greyed-out,? then there is no .RAW file to load.? That happens either because
- You have not run the simulation yet,
- You deleted the .RAW file,
- You renamed the .RAW file so the original one essentially does not exist,
- You moved the .RAW file somewhere else.
Clearly you first have to know what you are doing.? If there's no .RAW file, then there is nothing to load.
?
LTspice has a setting (in Control Panel/Settings > Waveforms) to save the output files including .RAW in a specific directory instead of the normal one with the schematic, and I am not sure if or how it affects its ability to find and re-open the .RAW file.? Obviously, if you re-use a schematic filename (e.g., "Draft1", it will overwrite the old .RAW file.? The schematics can be distinct because they were in different folders, but the .RAW files are not because they are all in one big barrel - with that setting.
?
Reloading that .raw file gives access to the large data from a long and multipart simulation.
It does.? Reloading it with its schematic is most ideal - for me, anyway - because it allows you to look at its schematic and pick what you want to plot.? But if your only objective is to re-run a .MEAS script and nothing else, then the only things needed are the .RAW file and the .MEAS scripts.? Yes, you can do that blindly.
?
Andy
?
|
Bell, Dave
John Woodgate
Tony Casey