Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:49 PM, Jeff Kayzerman wrote:
I tried this but now I get this windows error 3221226505
What did you try?
?
And when did you get that error (what were you doing when it happened)?
?
Andy
?
|
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:07 AM, Robert wrote:
As it happens I'm struggling with this old SPICE chestnut right now, working on trying to model the effect of a PTC fuse. This post resulted in me adding the directive: ?
.OPTIONS ITL4=100 ABSTOL=1E-9 VNTOL=1E-3 RELTOL=0.01 CSHUNT=5e-12
?
and that worked just fine for a while ... until I added an LT1375HV to the mix to try to move closer to what I actually want to model. ...
Did you try some or all of the options listed in the LTspice FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) file?? Please see the message # 158795 that I sent earlier today about that.
?
These "Timestep too small" errors do not have one remedy that always works.? That is why the FAQ file lists several things to try, and suggests trying all of them until you find something that works.
?
More than likely, your original circuit already had issues which had prompted you to add those .OPTIONS to the simulation to get it to work - and they helped that one case.? Then, adding another component to the circuit changed the mix of part models that were in your simulation, causing the "time step too small" error to return.? Like I say, no single remedy always works.? You have to be persistent.
If it's any consolation, upgrading from LTspice XVII to the latest version after I added the LT1375HV didn't help me.
I would not expect that to make any difference.? It is not a bug in a version of LTspice.? Both versions have essentially the same simulator algorithms so they do pretty much the same thing.
Neither did switching to the Gear integration method, which was recommended in that post I referenced.
That is but one of several things to try.? Download and read that FAQ file, then start trying the many things it suggests to try.
?
Tony's note about the rather large value for CSHUNT is important.? That number is "huge", and it is applied to every single circuit node!? It probably significantly (negatively) alters your simulated results, whether or not it helps avoid the "timestep too small" errors.? I think it should be at least one order of magnitude smaller than 5E-12.? The original note you said you got this from, did not mention CSHUNT, but it is one of the things that can help with these errors.
?
Andy
?
|
Or alternative to:
?
.model 1 ako: BSP89
.model 2 ako: BSS145
.STEP param M list 0 1
.param Model Select(M,"1","2")
?
is to use:
?
.STEP param M list 0 1
.param Model Select(M,"BSP89","BSS145")
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
Did you change your schematic and model references to NOT use the
absolute locations?
e.g. use ".include bunchOfModels.mod"
rather than ".include
\Home\Users\MyName\MyLibs\bunchOfModels.mod"
A web search on that error (and on the equivalent 0xc0000409)
suggests stack overflow in the process; not sure how that might
help you, but there it is. FWIW. Most appropriate link I found is
whose OP found was a referenced file had an o-umlaut in its name.
Donald.
On 2/26/25 13:49, Jeff Kayzerman wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I tried this but now I get this windows error 3221226505
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
I tried this but now I get this windows error 3221226505
|
Is it possible
to STEP 2 different MOSFETs in a simulation run.? I've read about
stepping models, and about basic subcircuits, but can you call one
MOSFET file for the first step run and another MOSFET file for the
second step run.
Yes, it can easily be done with the simple use of the AKO: syntax.
But it was temporarily broken when V24.1 was first introduced.
A modification of this method is now required, example: Stepping_Models_post-V24.1.zip.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Is it possible to STEP 2 different MOSFETs in a simulation run.? I've read about stepping models, and about basic subcircuits, but can you call one MOSFET file for the first step run and another MOSFET file for the second step run.
|
It looks like a corrupt download to me: an
error in the PDF code. Delete the .ZIP and try downloading
again.
On 2025-02-26 16:31, ehernan3 via
groups.io wrote:
Yeah I normally don't have issues with .zip files, but for
some reason I couldn't the files within that zip
?
--
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
|
Yeah I normally don't have issues with .zip files, but for some reason I couldn't the files within that zip
?
|
On 26/02/2025 16:58, Robert via
groups.io wrote:
As it happens I'm struggling with this old SPICE chestnut
right now, working on trying to model the effect of a PTC fuse.
This
post resulted in me adding the directive: ?
.OPTIONS ITL4=100 ABSTOL=1E-9 VNTOL=1E-3 RELTOL=0.01
CSHUNT=5e-12
?
and that worked just fine for a while ... until I added an
LT1375HV to the mix to try to move closer to what I actually
want to model. If it's any consolation, upgrading from LTspice
XVII to the latest version after I added the LT1375HV didn't
help me. Neither did switching to the Gear integration method,
which was recommended in that post I referenced.
5pF is very high capacitance to add to every node in your circuit.
It could significantly change the behaviour of many circuits.
Does the supplied LT1375HV example circuit simulate OK in your
version of LTspice without any .options? I just tried it in XVII
V17.1.15 and it worked fine.
I guess your schematic must have other components on it, since you " added
the LT1375HV"? Most likely, it would be one of those that
was causing problems. The LT-supplied models usually don't cause any
problems at all, but other proprietary models, often do.
If you still have trouble, you might consider uploading your
schematic to Files
> Temp, together with all models and symbols that didn't
originally come with LTspice. Multiple files should be uploaded in a
zip. Someone will take a look.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
As it happens I'm struggling with this old SPICE chestnut right now, working on trying to model the effect of a PTC fuse. This post resulted in me adding the directive: ?
.OPTIONS ITL4=100 ABSTOL=1E-9 VNTOL=1E-3 RELTOL=0.01 CSHUNT=5e-12
?
and that worked just fine for a while ... until I added an LT1375HV to the mix to try to move closer to what I actually want to model. If it's any consolation, upgrading from LTspice XVII to the latest version after I added the LT1375HV didn't help me. Neither did switching to the Gear integration method, which was recommended in that post I referenced.
|
On 26/02/2025 16:34, ehernan3 via
groups.io wrote:
Thank you for
uploading the file, but when I try to open the .zip file I get an
message saying "Assert Error (WZTStamp.c@556)" The parameter
is incorrect." . Would you be able to re upload the file or if
there is a work around for this error as well.?
As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with the uploaded zip,
but I updated the upload with just the .lib file.
Can you normally open zip files in Explorer?
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Thank you for uploading the file, but when I try to open the .zip file I get an message saying "Assert Error ( WZTStamp.c@556)" The parameter is incorrect." . Would you be able to re upload the file or if there is a work around for this error as well.? ?
In any case thank you again for your help.
|
I downloaded it directly from ADI's Website because the version that I have for LTspice XVII doesn't include the MAX44241.? When I checked if the component was within my version of Ltspice it wasn't.?
|
Re: LTspice 24.1 Simulation Errors
On 25/02/2025 09:17, herman.vos via
groups.io wrote:
I have just uploaded the update on the 74LVC1G.lib here:
Thanks for this. However, I just tried the old model library, and no
syntax errors are reported in V24.1.4.
Parentheses in the .model statements have always been ignored
anyway, so it shouldn't matter whether they are unbalanced. The
other "errors" with VCC & VCC3 aren't strictly errors either,
because parameters should recurse down the hierarchy provided they
are not redefined somewhere. I think we can regard previous versions
of V24.1 as being a little overzealous.
As a purist, though, I appreciate the corrections, which I will
incorporate in any future versions of the library.
--
Regards
Tony
|
On 26/02/2025 15:35, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
Did you use the MAX44241 model that comes with LTspice?? Or
did you download the Macro Model from ADI's website?
?
They are probably not the same.? (I didn't check this, but
you could.)? You might find that the model that comes with
LTspice, works a little better than the other one.
They're not the same. I have already uploaded the current model file
to Files > Temp.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Issues running LTspice as a batch service
This is a good example in support of the file management strategy
of including all symbols (and models and whatnot) that are not
part of the LTspice installation in the same directory (folder) as
the schematic which uses/invokes them. Doing so ensures that all
files that the simulation needs are available to whichever user
(or other entity) is going to use the simulation.
Donald.
On 2/25/25 22:08, Andy I via groups.io
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:32 PM, Jeff Kayzerman wrote:
....
Does anyone know why running in batch mode as a service
account it would fail to look in the search paths?
This is only a guess here.? But I suspect you have defined User
folders for your symbols and models, which reside in one of your
account's folders, perhaps under its "Documents" folder or
"AppData" or whatever.? The other account does not have the same
folders.? Well, it has the same-named folders but they are
distinct for each user.? So it does not see the same library
areas.
?
The settings in the .ini file are relative to each account's
folders, as managed by MS-Windows.? Windows does a good job of
hiding their actual physical locations.
?
Andy
?
|
Did you use the MAX44241 model that comes with LTspice?? Or did you download the Macro Model from ADI's website?
?
They are probably not the same.? (I didn't check this, but you could.)? You might find that the model that comes with LTspice, works a little better than the other one.
?
Andy
?
?
|
On 26/02/2025 15:02, ehernan3 via
groups.io wrote:
I
had downloaded the MAX44241 Spice model and Ltspice schematic
from Analog's website. For some reason I get the following error
message. " Analysis: Time step too small; initial timepoint;
trouble with u1: desd-instance d:u1:3 " I didn't change anything
within the model or schematic itself so I'm not too sure why is
occurred. Please note I am limited to use Ltspice XVII and can't
update my software to LTspice 24, due to my company not
approving that version of the software. I was wondering if there
is a work around to get that error to not show up anymore and
run without any issues within LTspice XVII.
The MAX44241 model is now supplied with LTspice, as from 02/15/22.
Have you been able to update your components since since that date?
There is a line in the changelog suggesting this a corrected model,
which implies the previous one might have been problematic.
The model supplied with LTspice is different from the one on the ADI
website.
I have version LTspiceXVII 17.1.15 and the MAX44241 example circuit
runs fine with the current supplied model. I have uploaded this
model to Files > Temp as MAX44241.lib.zip.
Try that.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Also FYI -
?
The occurrence of the error tends to depend on both the SPICE part models, and on the circuit you used them in.? That model from Analog Devices might work perfectly in every other circuit they tried, but not your circuit.
?
That being said, if one must put the blame somewhere, it is most often caused by deficiencies in a part's model, rather than actually caused by the circuit where it was used.? Many SPICE models today - most of them - have functions that are not as well-behaved as they should be.? Discontinuities in those functions or their derivatives are the kinds of things that can lead to "time step too small" errors.
?
Andy
?
|
Tony Casey
John Woodgate