Reply-To: "fred bartoli"
From: "fred bartoli"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <12j4LzC+fEp9EwgG@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <699p9.8961$QY.email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with Electronics Workbench - timestep errors
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:59:20 +0200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Oct 2002 15:58:09 MEST
Kevin Aylward a écrit dans le message :
> "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
> at all.
> > 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
> > "spice".
> > 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
Coming late in this thread to support you Kevin (not meaning that you need).
Have read all the comments above and in the other posts and I 2000% fully
agree with you and *must* say to little lost angel and Roger that they are
Sticking with scopes... only show reluctance to change one's way of thinking
and habits. Designing serious analog stuff require you to do this very
often. Once you'll changed to use
I also "tried" EWB one or two years ago, and decided as soon as installed
that it's just eligible for the trash can.
Setting up a schematic is 10 times too long. The models library is
ridiculously low quality, and the *necessary* features for serious work are
lacking, at the "benefits" of useless scopes, meters and so on. For me it's
a strictly marketing positionning from a looser firm that *can't* manage to
build a good enough simulator for the professional market and then try to
make money on credulous amateurs. I've seen a lot in the spice simulators
domain but I must admit that EWB is the worst I've ever seen.
To be honest in comparing both, I've just downloaded SS and gave it a try :
3 min for download
1 min for installation
2 min to play with the menus, toolbars, library structure, options... to get
a quick feeling of how SS is designed...
then 2 min to setup a SK LP filter with a 2N3904 buffer, simulate its AC
transfer function, extract the poles and zeros, then build an equivalent
laplace block and so on.
Oh, the 2n3904 model was also created in a snap with parameters from my own
library, not using Kevin's ones, as I wanted to compare the results from the
one I'm used to.
Definitely simple to use and intuitive. I also reckon that it's a nice job
from a single man that also simulate 40hours a day. Maybe you wrote SS
during the other 7 days of the week ?
FYI, I've noticed some easy to implement small features that could increase
schematics capture speed, though I did play with SS only for something like
30min, so I probably don't have all the good reflexes with SS. If you're
interested I could more thoroughly "review" it and give you some feedback
(from someone that only does simulation 8 hours a day).
To little lost angel and Roger, again SS is a much more valuable software
than EWB for amateurs (and it's free for small sized projects) provided that
you have the willing to (only slightly) change your way of thinking. You
will learn much more this way, but perhaps it's not your point after all.
> Kevin Aylward
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.