Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <12j4LzC+fEp9EwgG@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with Electronics Workbench - timestep errors
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1034231490 29857 220.127.116.11 (10 Oct 2002 06:31:30 GMT)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:31:22 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:31:30 BST
"Roger Johansson" wrote in message
> "Kevin Aylward" wrote:
> >Sure, you can connect up signal generators and scopes and see all the
> >little bitty pretty pictures, if that makes you happy, but you wont
> >doing electronics.
> I think that millions of people have worked all their lives with
> electronics without even having heard about spice simulators,
> netlists, etc..
I was referring to showing pictures in a *spice simulation* with no idea
of the principles of how those pictures came about. If you are a novice
in electronics, then you will have to lean what frequency response and
time domain response actually means. Once you understand the electronics
of what you are doing, running SS is trivial. If you don't know anything
or little about, how can you possible expect to run a simulator without
a bit of a learning curve. Its exactly the same as the learning curve on
a breadboard, it just that the graph screen is not, usually a scope, its
actually something easier to use.
> These people, and service engineers, and students, amateurs, ham radio
> builders, etc will have no problems using EWB, without reading one
> single line of docs, without learning anything.
But that simple not true. There is no need to know about netlists to use
SS. Furthermore I have had many complete novices run SS with no problems
> That is the beauty of EWB, people with knowledge about electronics and
> using computers can use it straight away, and have a working circuit
> within a minute.
I don't agree at all. I an expert in using simulators and I found EWB
essentially impossible to use. I knows exactly what simulators should
do, and most variants of how they do it. In EWB, many things were simple
not guessable at all. I would say that additional support for this view
is that, imo, is that in these NG's EWB often gets a trashing.
> To use your program they would need to learn a lot about netlists, and
> learn a whole new set of terms and how to use them.
As I noted, this is simple *not* true. You simple place components. Set
up runs in the GUI, e.g. stop start run times, press run and all graphs
get displayed. Its a no brainier. As I said, you must know enough
electronics to know that if you want a signal of 5Volts at a frequency
of 1KHz, you have to tell the source that! A simulator can not read your
> EWB users would be doing spice analysis without even knowing the word
> Of course they could do a lot more sophisticated and specialized
> simulations if they had that knowledge, but with EWB they at least can
> start working with computer simulations without any initial problems.
Not in my book. As I noted, I had amazing difficulty getting EWB to run.
Why do you think that I started SS in the first place?
> If you are used to get by with such simple tools as oscilloscopes,
> voltmeters, function generators, you feel no need for the more
> sophisticated tools your program offers.
Ahmmm. The SuperSpice graph is easier then a scope. Simple moving a test
point on to wires and pins displays volts and current. This is far
easier then connecting up voltmeters. The superspice source *are*
function generators, they just don't look like them.
> A sophisticated spice simulator could very well have such an easy to
> use interface even if it also had a lot more sophisticated tools which
> the user could learn later.
> There is no good reason for omitting the simple user interface when it
> is relatively easy to implement.
SuperSpice *does* have a trivial simple user interface. However, it is
not one designed around virtual instruments.
> It would be like writing books with edlin just because nobody bothered
> to create a modern text editor.
You have still missed the point. Spice without virtual instruments is
*the* *modern* way of doing spice simulations. It is a *superior*
method. People brought up on scopes and meters need to get out of that
*dated* mindset. Vendors introduce virtual instruments not because it is
a better way to do spice simulation but because people like to stick
with what they know, not what is best.
> The first professional spice simulator which offers such a simple
> interface will take over a big part of the market.
In all honesty, you just don't have any idea of what simulation is all
> The potential market is a lot bigger than just the few professional
> designers who can use spice simulators without such an interface.
As I said, once the novices user grows up a bit and rids himself of
preconceived ideas he can get on with the job of real electronic
I should point out here, that while SS is indeed easy to use, imo, it is
simple *not* designed as a student *instruction* tool. It is designed
for doing real analogue design work.
> You used the word "must" extensively in your message.
> A lot of people would like a world with less "musts" in it.
Because must was the right word to use. If you *want* to do and
understand electronics you *must* understand the very raw, basic and
trivial stuff like what is a frequency response, what is a time domain
response, how to I generate signals to do these. Of course if you
*don't* want to understand electronics, then none of this will apply to
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.