Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Tony Williams
Guest
Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:51 am
In article <QdO1e.17494$4%3.5551_at_fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <see_website_at_anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Quote:
As a realist, I would never even contemplate a "wish" of what you
suggested for a freebee product. I certainly use free software
products, but my expectations of what I get for my money are
rather limited. Any "little" feature, can end up being a massive
amount of work.
You still don't see it.
It's a suggestion that could be beneficial to LT.
At rock bottom, LTspice is an aid to selling Linear
Technology's products. The suggestion of a cross
reference between other mfr's products and equivalent
LT devices is intended to help LTspice to sell more
LT devices.
I repeat: If in LTspice I called up say a TL081,
and got offered a similar LT device, then I would
simulate with that and probably call up the LT device
in the final BOM. That seems a fair way of 'paying'
for what is an excellent free piece of software.
--
Tony Williams.
Helmut Sennewald
Guest
Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:39 am
"Tony Williams" <tonyw_at_ledelec.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4d52a29efatonyw_at_ledelec.demon.co.uk...
Quote:
In article <QdO1e.17494$4%3.5551_at_fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <see_website_at_anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
As a realist, I would never even contemplate a "wish" of what you
suggested for a freebee product. I certainly use free software
products, but my expectations of what I get for my money are
rather limited. Any "little" feature, can end up being a massive
amount of work.
You still don't see it.
It's a suggestion that could be beneficial to LT.
At rock bottom, LTspice is an aid to selling Linear
Technology's products. The suggestion of a cross
reference between other mfr's products and equivalent
LT devices is intended to help LTspice to sell more
LT devices.
I repeat: If in LTspice I called up say a TL081,
and got offered a similar LT device, then I would
simulate with that and probably call up the LT device
in the final BOM. That seems a fair way of 'paying'
for what is an excellent free piece of software.
--
Tony Williams.
Hello Tony,
the benfit for LT would be low. LTspice tries to make
"unique" opamps. Unique means they have one or more
better specs than you get from standard parts.
This may result in a higher price for such better parts.
If people have the cheapest parts of the world (TL082)
in mind, they can't afford anything more expensive.
It's so simple to add any third party model. The only
additional thing to do is adding a ".include" command line.
You don't need a new symbol for every other opamp!
1. Add the "opamp2" symbol.
2. Rename it the model name(opamp2) in the schematic,
e.g. opamp2 to TL082 .
3. Add this command line: .include model_file_name
4. Place the model_file in the directory where you have
saved the schematic.
Best Regards,
Helmut
PS: I am not an employee of LT if that matters.
Kevin Aylward
Guest
Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:55 am
Tony Williams wrote:
Quote:
In article <QdO1e.17494$4%3.5551_at_fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <see_website_at_anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
As a realist, I would never even contemplate a "wish" of what you
suggested for a freebee product. I certainly use free software
products, but my expectations of what I get for my money are
rather limited. Any "little" feature, can end up being a massive
amount of work.
You still don't see it.
Oh?
Quote:
It's a suggestion that could be beneficial to LT.
It may well be, but its a return on investment. *How* beneficial would
it be to LT?
Quote:
At rock bottom, LTspice is an aid to selling Linear
Technology's products. The suggestion of a cross
reference between other mfr's products and equivalent
LT devices is intended to help LTspice to sell more
LT devices.
I repeat: If in LTspice I called up say a TL081,
and got offered a similar LT device, then I would
simulate with that and probably call up the LT device
in the final BOM. That seems a fair way of 'paying'
for what is an excellent free piece of software.
I also repeat "Any little feature, can end up being a massive amounts of
work."
I've been there dude, I am still there. Sure, lots of things may be
"useful". Whether or not it makes any business sense to do so is another
matter. LTSpice is still only an *indirect* way to generate revenue.
Maybe it could be cost effective to add more bells and whistles, but the
impression I got was still this "looking a gift horse in the mouth" sort
of thing. I suppose you also want fries with that?
Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Tony Williams
Guest
Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:25 am
In article <FoR1e.18312$4%3.15162_at_fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <see_website_at_anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
huge snip]
Quote:
I've been there dude, I am still there. Sure, lots of things may
be "useful". Whether or not it makes any business sense to do so
is another matter. LTSpice is still only an *indirect* way to
generate revenue. Maybe it could be cost effective to add more
bells and whistles, but the impression I got was still this
"looking a gift horse in the mouth" sort of thing. I suppose you
also want fries with that?
You can of course conveniently ignore any of the other
posts I have made praising/recommending LTspice.
--
Tony Williams.
Tony Williams
Guest
Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:21 pm
In article <d28mtn$mm9$02$1_at_news.t-online.com>,
Helmut Sennewald <helmutsennewald_at_t-online.de> wrote:
Quote:
Hello Tony,
the benfit for LT would be low. LTspice tries to make
"unique" opamps. Unique means they have one or more
better specs than you get from standard parts.
Hmm... perhaps that is why the Linear View 3 CDROM
(which I bought as a result of LTspice) also does not
carry any cross references.
Quote:
This may result in a higher price for such better parts.
If people have the cheapest parts of the world (TL082)
in mind, they can't afford anything more expensive.
I chose a wrong example Helmut. I'm fortunate to be in
a branch of electronics (avionics ATE), where being well
within spec and bullet proof is far more important than
the cost of an ic. So an LT part that models properly
in LTspice (even at N times the price) is ok.
[snip]
Quote:
PS: I am not an employee of LT if that matters.
I know. Thank you for your remarks.
--
Tony Williams.
xray
Guest
Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:51 pm
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:55:33 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<see_website_at_anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Quote:
I suppose you also want fries with that?
Sure. That would be a good feature.
But not too often. Got a good model for my cholesterol with/without?
Robert Baer
Guest
Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:51 am
Tony Williams wrote:
Quote:
In article <QdO1e.17494$4%3.5551_at_fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <see_website_at_anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
As a realist, I would never even contemplate a "wish" of what you
suggested for a freebee product. I certainly use free software
products, but my expectations of what I get for my money are
rather limited. Any "little" feature, can end up being a massive
amount of work.
You still don't see it.
It's a suggestion that could be beneficial to LT.
At rock bottom, LTspice is an aid to selling Linear
Technology's products. The suggestion of a cross
reference between other mfr's products and equivalent
LT devices is intended to help LTspice to sell more
LT devices.
I repeat: If in LTspice I called up say a TL081,
and got offered a similar LT device, then I would
simulate with that and probably call up the LT device
in the final BOM. That seems a fair way of 'paying'
for what is an excellent free piece of software.
And it is not difficult to do, it just takes time.
So one mfg's product could be used as a starter, and others can be
added on as time permits.
An excellent initial candidate for replacement look-up is Maxim, as
the majority of what they advertise is vaporware, and un-buidable
articles causes frustration and excellent candidates as customers for
parts that !can! be obtained.
Guest
Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:55 pm
you're right Ib is actually 681nA but that's because the model reflects
the first revision, it's dependant of the Bf, my guess is that no one
created a second version of this model.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
