Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:28 AM, John Woodgate wrote:
Yes, I brought it up, and ADI have agreed that it needs to be fixed. I guess pixels are somehow smaller now than when Mike E wrote the code for the dots.
I think you forgot the :^).? ¡somewhat smaller.
?
I do like the crosses idea.
?
mike
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
Brady wrote, "However, the current through the final capacitor C1/C3 (unfortunately I haven't indexed the circuits the same way) is completely different, as is the voltage at 'Vout'. Would someone please explain what I am missing?"
?
By observation:
?
What you are missing is a load on Vout.? Without any resistor from there to ground, the DC voltage at that node is indeterminate (unknown).
?
Also, there would be zero current through that capacitor.
?
I haven't run your simulation yet.? It is a really bad idea to modify your "standard.bjt" file by adding new models to it.? In this case, the only transistor is the AC128, and it would have been far better to just include the .MODEL statement for that transistor, either on the schematic itself, or in a separate file.
?
Your "standard.bjt" file has two AC128 models in it.? That is yet another problem.
? ? .MODEL AC128 PNP(IS=20.66u BF=229.6 BR=14.66 NF=1.133 NR=1.140 VT=25.5m VAF=19.68?
? ? + ? VAR=88.28 IKF=463.0m IKR=241.5m ISE=2.190u ISC=7.546u NE=1.796 NC=1.364 RB=1.885?
? ? + ? RE=306.4m RC=1.727u CCB=100p)
?
.MODEL AC128 PNP(IS=5u ISC=1u ISE=200n IKF=3 ITF=1
+ ? NC=2 NE=1.5 BF=90 BR=5 RB=7 RC=0.2 RE=0.1 vaf=40 var=40 CJC=250p CJE=80p TR=5u TF=1u
+ ? FC=0.5 eg=0.72 VJC=0.4 VJE=0.4 VTF=4 MJC=0.333 MJE=0.333 XTB=1.5 XTF=6 XTI=3 Vceo=16
+ ? Icrating=1 MFG=GERMANIUM-TYPE)
?
Which model did you want your simulation to use?? It can't use both.? Choose one and delete the other.
?
Andy
?
?
|
Brady Ridgway's Fuzz_Face (guitar "fuzz" circuit) simulations
Brady Ridgway uploaded some files to the Temp folder, which are now inside "Fuzz_Face_+G.zip".
?
But Brady forgot to send a message here.? Brady, please READ the group's guidelines on its main webpage.? After uploading something, it is crucial that you compose and send an actual message here to this group, telling us what you did.? You forgot to do that. ?
Everyone else, here is the file Description that Brady used with his uploaded files:
?
I am a beginner. I have uploaded two circuits, both of the classic Fuzz Face, which differ mainly in the power supply. Apart from the LT1054 and its components, the circuits are, I believe, identical. Graphing the voltage in most of the circuit produces very similar results, with the losses in the LT1054 being the cause. However, the current through the final capacitor C1/C3 (unfortunately I haven't indexed the circuits the same way) is completely different, as is the voltage at 'Vout'. Would someone please explain what I am missing?
?
Some of us here will remember the Fuzz Face.? It is a guitar "fuzz" circuit.? If I remember correctly, it simulates poorly in LTspice, suggesting that the circuit works differently than SPICE simulations suggest.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:46 AM, Dennis wrote:
Yes, a click on a rectangles corner anchor does allow stretching directly, but the click target is so very small that often the user clicks on one of the sides instead and then the operation becomes a move rather than a stretch, or the click isn't recognized at all.
?
Clicking on a side of the rectangle displays two anchor circles on opposite corners of the rectangle. It seems to me that any click inside the radius of those circles should act like a click on the corner of the rectangle and begin the stretch operation.?
?
As it is now, it is too finicky to be reliable so users have started to use the lasso operation to select the corner instead of a click. Hence all the reports saying this is required.
Ah, yes. I was playing with it at quite a high magnification, where the anchors/handles are fat circles, easy to grab. Don't have to zoom very far to make it impossible to point-to-grab a handle. Ideally, the handle size would not be magnification dependent, albeit relative location is. This latter conditions is a common problem in drawing applications: can't distinguish one handle from another because locations are too close re pixels, but accepted as a necessary evil by users. This, in contrast to the LTspice problem, which you've discovered: the handle unavailable because it has shrunk, not very friendly.
?
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Afraid it is automated. The script that changes the version label runs some time later in a batch process, after the file is uploaded. Lags by a day or so. You can also use Check for Updates in LTspice, to see what download is actually available.
?
--
Michael Stokowski
LTspice Team
Analog Devices Inc.
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Yup, version 24.1.5 is the one that's there, identified as 24.1.4.
?
I already let Analog Devices know that they have to update their webpage to show what you are actually downloading.
?
Andy
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:24 AM, Andy I wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:16 PM, eetech00 wrote:
By the way, I'm referring to the operation in LTspice 24.1.5
Analog Devices claims the current version is 24.1.4.? They have not updated their LTspice downloads page yet.
?
?
?
Ok...well I just updated to 24.1.5
?
Here's a snippet from the log:
?
3/09/25 LTspice 24.1.5
? ? ? ?* Bug fixes
? ? ? ?* Node names can be expressions again, this time officially documented and supported
2/18/25 LTspice 24.1.4
? ? ? ?* Bug fixes and minor improvements
2/14/25 LTspice 24.1.3
? ? ? ?* Re-enabled expanded netlist functionality
? ? ? ?* Bug fixes
2/1/25 LTspice 24.1.2
? ? ? ?* Re-enabled caret operator
? ? ? ?* Duplicate .model cards are accepted if they are identical
? ? ? ?* Duplicate .func, .param, and .subckt are accepted if they come from the same location in the same file
? ? ? ?* Other bugs fixed
..........
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:34 AM, Tony Casey wrote:
On 11/03/2025 17:23, Tony Casey wrote:
But I was running 24.0.15.
Duh! I meant 24.0.12. Too many version numbers for my brain to handle.
--
Regards,
Tony
?
?
lol...I know what you mean :-)
?
Confirmed no errors in 24.0.12.
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Also, there doesn¡¯t appear to have been a
24.0.15; the last one listed is 24.0.12. I can run the uploaded
.ASC with 24.0.11.
On 2025-03-11 16:24, Andy I via
groups.io wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:16 PM, eetech00 wrote:
By the way, I'm referring to the operation in LTspice
24.1.5
Analog Devices claims the current version is 24.1.4.? They have
not updated their LTspice downloads page yet.
?
?
--
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: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
On 11/03/2025 17:23, Tony Casey wrote:
But I
was running 24.0.15.
Duh! I meant 24.0.12. Too many version numbers for my brain to
handle.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
Yes, I brought it up, and ADI have agreed that
it needs to be fixed. I guess pixels are somehow smaller now
than when Mike E wrote the code for the dots.
On 2025-03-11 16:00, eetech00 via
groups.io wrote:
I don't know if this was brought up...but I still can't see a
schematic grid.
I haven't been able to view the grid for many versions of
LTspice.
I use a light grey background but it doesn't seem to matter.
Basically, the grid switch and color does nothing.
?
I'm sometimes use a 4K 65" sony TV as monitor.
--
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: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:16 PM, eetech00 wrote:
By the way, I'm referring to the operation in LTspice 24.1.5
Analog Devices claims the current version is 24.1.4.? They have not updated their LTspice downloads page yet.
?
?
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
On 11/03/2025 16:35, eetech00 via
groups.io wrote:
There is a special
model "BUK7xxxx-40H_LTspice.zip" that needs to be downloaded and
used for the simulation in Fig. 13. There is a link in the app
note that initiates a download. However, when the included
simulation file is run, many errors are produced. Unfortunately,
the library file is encrypted, so I'm unable to troubleshoot. So
requires NXP support.
I don't get any errors running the schematic that the OP uploaded.
But I was running 24.0.15. When I try 24.1.4, then the errors occur.
Umm......
However, I still don't get agreement between the Appnote and model.
I notice that the readable text in the library isn't the same as in
the Appnote, at least in the model list, so the library must be a
different version.
Looks like 24.1.4 is having trouble with the encrypted library,
whereas 24.0.15 doesn't. The 24.1.4 Logfile has 4005 errors and
11151 lines in it, and is 868kB!
It's clear that too many things in 24.1.x are broken for it to be
used yet for mainstream.
--
Regards,
Tony
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 09:11 AM, eetech00 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:46 AM, Dennis wrote:
Yes, a click on a rectangles corner anchor does allow stretching directly, but the click target is so very small that often the user clicks on one of the sides instead and then the operation becomes a move rather than a stretch, or the click isn't recognized at all.
?
Clicking on a side of the rectangle displays two anchor circles on opposite corners of the rectangle. It seems to me that any click inside the radius of those circles should act like a click on the corner of the rectangle and begin the stretch operation.?
?
As it is now, it is too finicky to be reliable so users have started to use the lasso operation to select the corner instead of a click. Hence all the reports saying this is required.
?
That might be the problem.
A drag operation shouldn't turn into a move operation.
If a drag operation has been selected, a click anywhere on the edge of a rectangle should drag the edge of the rectangle and its intersecting edges..
If a drag operation has been selected, a lasso should be required to drag intersecting edges of a rectangle.
?
Just my opinion.
?
?
By the way, I'm referring to the operation in LTspice 24.1.5
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:46 AM, Dennis wrote:
Yes, a click on a rectangles corner anchor does allow stretching directly, but the click target is so very small that often the user clicks on one of the sides instead and then the operation becomes a move rather than a stretch, or the click isn't recognized at all.
?
Clicking on a side of the rectangle displays two anchor circles on opposite corners of the rectangle. It seems to me that any click inside the radius of those circles should act like a click on the corner of the rectangle and begin the stretch operation.?
?
As it is now, it is too finicky to be reliable so users have started to use the lasso operation to select the corner instead of a click. Hence all the reports saying this is required.
?
That might be the problem.
A drag operation shouldn't turn into a move operation.
If a drag operation has been selected, a click anywhere on the edge of a rectangle should drag the edge of the rectangle and its intersecting edges..
If a drag operation has been selected, a lasso should be required to drag intersecting edges of a rectangle.
?
Just my opinion.
?
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
I don't know if this was brought up...but I still can't see a schematic grid.
I haven't been able to view the grid for many versions of LTspice.
I use a light grey background but it doesn't seem to matter.
Basically, the grid switch and color does nothing.
?
I'm sometimes use a 4K 65" sony TV as monitor.
|
Re: Schematic drawing issues
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 01:36 PM, mstokowski wrote:
Considered and done! Actually, no change needed, you can already do this by clicking an anchor, or node, or component¡ªno lasso required.
?
Yes, a click on a rectangles corner anchor does allow stretching directly, but the click target is so very small that often the user clicks on one of the sides instead and then the operation becomes a move rather than a stretch, or the click isn't recognized at all.
?
Clicking on a side of the rectangle displays two anchor circles on opposite corners of the rectangle. It seems to me that any click inside the radius of those circles should act like a click on the corner of the rectangle and begin the stretch operation.?
?
As it is now, it is too finicky to be reliable so users have started to use the lasso operation to select the corner instead of a click. Hence all the reports saying this is required.
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 05:23 AM, MaticH wrote:
I am having issue with simulating experia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model characteristics when simulating mosfet with exact same setup as it is in application note i get quite different results for example output characteristic or transfer characterisitc. Anyone know what could be the problem here ??
?
?
Hi
?
There is a special model "BUK7xxxx-40H_LTspice.zip" that needs to be downloaded and used for the simulation in Fig. 13. There is a link in the app note that initiates a download. However, when the included simulation file is run, many errors are produced. Unfortunately, the library file is encrypted, so I'm unable to troubleshoot. So requires NXP support.
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
I will try to ask manufacturer, thank you for help :)?
|
Re: Issue with Nexperia BUK7S1R0-40H PET LTspice model
It's quite possible that the data sheet Figure
13 isn't based on the Spice model, but on measurements of actual
devices? of superior, rather than average, performance. There is
no way we can tell. You could refer your question to the
manufacturer.
On 2025-03-11 13:41, matichvala6 via
groups.io wrote:
I uploadet screenshots of my simulation and appnote Figure
/g/LTspice/files/Temp/BUK7S1R0-40H%20simulation.zip.
Yes i am looking at figure 13, the thing that bothers me are the
final values of drain current, should't it be the same for same
simulation setup as in app note ? For instance @Vgs = 4.5V my
simulation shows Id around 75A, while in datasheet @Vgs = 4.5V
is around 130A.? Maybe i am missing something, i am quite new to LTspice.?
--
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
|
John Woodgate
Tony Casey