Help Choosing a Simulator - LTspice, QSPICE or TINA-TI

[JJ_023]

One of the areas of knowledge I am looking to expand is the use of a simulator for modeling circuits.  I have been playing around with the following 3 simulators.

LTspice  https://www.analog.com/en/resources/design-tools-and-calculators/ltspice-simulator.html

QSPICE   https://www.qorvo.com/design-hub/design-tools/interactive/qspice

TINA-TI   https://www.ti.com/tool/TINA-TI

I am asking for help in steering my decision-making process.  LT Spice seems to be the gold standard but I find it cumbersome to use and the UI not as friendly.

QSPICE Was developed by the same gentleman that did LT Spice and seems to be a better evolution of LT spice.

For those of you that have read some of my posts before I am somewhat partial to Texas Instruments because I find they make quality parts but most importantly I find it interesting reading their data sheets. Not only do they give specifications but they offer a very good education on certain subject matters.  For this particular reason I decided to try TINA-TI.

TINA-TI by far to me seems the most natural and easiest to use and model basic circuits.

I am asking for people who are a lot more experienced than me to give me guidance in selecting a simulator to focus on.  If I decided to settle on TINA-TI would I be missing anything and/or would I be gaining anything over the other two?

QSPICE Seems to be superior to LT spice and it was developed by the same gentleman that developed LT spice so naturally it seems like it would be a better simulator.

Since I would like to become a lot more proficient in being able to model circuits via simulator and am going to allocate a considerable portion of my time in becoming proficient I am asking for the communities help in guiding my decision making process considering I am virtually new to utilizing a simulator.

As always thank you to all who participate in advance.

[tggzzz]

I suggest the GUI is not particularly important; it is merely visual "syntactic sugar". https://www.techopedia.com/definition/10212/syntactic-sugar

More important:

• models in the library for the components you want to use
• whether the models actually model the characteristics that you need, e.g. noise
• whether it can use other standards, e.g. IBIS

[JJ_023]

I suggest the GUI is not particularly important; it is merely visual "syntactic sugar". https://www.techopedia.com/definition/10212/syntactic-sugar

More important:

• models in the library for the components you want to use
• whether the models actually model the characteristics that you need, e.g. noise
• whether it can use other standards, e.g. IBIS

I agree with your list but I myself lack the hands-on experience to discern which of the three would be best suited. Are you yourself familiar with any of these products besides LT spice?

[Zero999]

I've never heard of QSPIC.

I've tried TINA-TI, mostly before it was actually bought by TI, but never really liked it. It just didn't seem to work very smoothly and I wasn't keen on the UI. I've also tried it again since TI bought it, but it's still the same.

I'd recommend LTSpice. It's pretty easy to import other models into it. If you're going to ask questions here about simulation, you'll generally get better results, if you attach LTSpice files more than any other type.

[JJ_023]

I've never heard of QSPIC.

I've tried TINA-TI, mostly before it was actually bought by TI, but never really liked it. It just didn't seem to work very smoothly and I wasn't keen on the UI. I've also tried it again since TI bought it, but it's still the same.

I'd recommend LTSpice. It's pretty easy to import other models into it. If you're going to ask questions here about simulation, you'll generally get better results, if you attach LTSpice files more than any other type.

The proliferation of LT spice definitely is a very strong argument for it.  QSPICE was created by the guy that created LT Spice and is supposed to be a much better version of it.  I personally don't have the experience or knowledge to confirm or deny that claim but I did do a bunch of research into these simulators.

I am surprised you did not like the Texas Instrument UI simulator.  To me it is the most appealing and easiest to model with.  Just setting up basic DC and AC circuits with random resistor values to practice KVL and KCL is so much easier to me with Texas Instruments.

[tggzzz]

I suggest the GUI is not particularly important; it is merely visual "syntactic sugar". https://www.techopedia.com/definition/10212/syntactic-sugar

More important:

• models in the library for the components you want to use
• whether the models actually model the characteristics that you need, e.g. noise
• whether it can use other standards, e.g. IBIS

I agree with your list but I myself lack the hands-on experience to discern which of the three would be best suited. Are you yourself familiar with any of these products besides LT spice?

I don't know what models you want and what you want to simulate. If you don't then it doesn't matter which simulator you use; they are all more or less equivalent.

Another possibility is microcap; well regarded, but abandonware.

[JJ_023]

I suggest the GUI is not particularly important; it is merely visual "syntactic sugar". https://www.techopedia.com/definition/10212/syntactic-sugar

More important:

• models in the library for the components you want to use
• whether the models actually model the characteristics that you need, e.g. noise
• whether it can use other standards, e.g. IBIS

I agree with your list but I myself lack the hands-on experience to discern which of the three would be best suited. Are you yourself familiar with any of these products besides LT spice?

I don't know what models you want and what you want to simulate. If you don't then it doesn't matter which simulator you use; they are all more or less equivalent.

Another possibility is microcap; well regarded, but abandonware.

My two main goals for right now are to get a much better understanding of operational amplifiers.  I have a few books that are dedicated specifically for operational amplifiers so I am playing around with all sorts of basic operational amplifier circuits. 

My other main goal is to be able to model the circuits in some sort of spice simulator. 

Thanks for taking the time to give me your opinion.

[tggzzz]

What aspects of opamp behaviour, precisely?

Some opamp models are so-called macromodels, which model gross large scale behaviour but not the subtle behaviour. For example, they may be suitable for understanding small signal time domain response but not overload recovery nor noise. And that is independent of the simulator: it is only a function of what's in the model.

If you are only interested in generic opamp operation, then any simulator will be sufficient.

N.B. iMNSHO there is a great deal of value in simulating generic behaviour without worrying about the subtle effects of specific opamp's behaviour. Ditto the subtle behaviour of specific opamps, but that requires detailed accurate models.

[Zero999]

I've never heard of QSPIC.

I've tried TINA-TI, mostly before it was actually bought by TI, but never really liked it. It just didn't seem to work very smoothly and I wasn't keen on the UI. I've also tried it again since TI bought it, but it's still the same.

I'd recommend LTSpice. It's pretty easy to import other models into it. If you're going to ask questions here about simulation, you'll generally get better results, if you attach LTSpice files more than any other type.

The proliferation of LT spice definitely is a very strong argument for it.  QSPICE was created by the guy that created LT Spice and is supposed to be a much better version of it.  I personally don't have the experience or knowledge to confirm or deny that claim but I did do a bunch of research into these simulators.

I am surprised you did not like the Texas Instrument UI simulator.  To me it is the most appealing and easiest to model with.  Just setting up basic DC and AC circuits with random resistor values to practice KVL and KCL is so much easier to me with Texas Instruments.

It's somewhat subjective. I've just downloaded and installed TINA-TI to remind me why I didn't get on with it. Schematic entry is a pain. I have to use the scroll bars, where as with LTSpice it automatically scrolls. The scroll wheel doesn't zoom. If I want to put a resistor in series with something, I have to manually break a wires to place it, then reconnect them. LTSpice allows me to put the resistor on top of the wire and it breaks and remakes the connections for me. When inserting wires, they follow the mouse cursor, rather than going point to point, where I click. Rotating a part with wires connected to it breaks the wires. To be fair, I'm currently running it under WINE and I might've downloaded a slightly older version, as I went to a file download site, as I couldn't be bothered to make a TI account to download it from the TI site, so it might not be quite that bad.

I suggest the GUI is not particularly important; it is merely visual "syntactic sugar". https://www.techopedia.com/definition/10212/syntactic-sugar

More important:

• models in the library for the components you want to use
• whether the models actually model the characteristics that you need, e.g. noise
• whether it can use other standards, e.g. IBIS

I agree with your list but I myself lack the hands-on experience to discern which of the three would be best suited. Are you yourself familiar with any of these products besides LT spice?

I don't know what models you want and what you want to simulate. If you don't then it doesn't matter which simulator you use; they are all more or less equivalent.

Another possibility is microcap; well regarded, but abandonware.

My two main goals for right now are to get a much better understanding of operational amplifiers.  I have a few books that are dedicated specifically for operational amplifiers so I am playing around with all sorts of basic operational amplifier circuits. 

My other main goal is to be able to model the circuits in some sort of spice simulator. 

Thanks for taking the time to give me your opinion.

LTSpice has some handy generic op-amp models which enable you to alter parameters such as bandwidth, open-loop gain, slew-rate, phase margin etc. I've not seen a similar facility in TINA-TI but it might be possible to create your own or even use LTSpice's if you like, although it seems a faff.

[JJ_023]

What aspects of opamp behaviour, precisely?

Some opamp models are so-called macromodels, which model gross large scale behaviour but not the subtle behaviour. For example, they may be suitable for understanding small signal time domain response but not overload recovery nor noise. And that is independent of the simulator: it is only a function of what's in the model.

If you are only interested in generic opamp operation, then any simulator will be sufficient.

N.B. iMNSHO there is a great deal of value in simulating generic behaviour without worrying about the subtle effects of specific opamp's behaviour. Ditto the subtle behaviour of specific opamps, but that requires detailed accurate models.

I am just learning the basics with operational amplifiers. 

The direction I'm looking to go into would be voltage regulation and current regulation for designing a power supply.  I have picked out a few chips that are interesting to me that specifically focus on those aspects.

Right now I am playing around with the basic operational amplifier circuits that everybody is familiar with when they start.

When I am ready to take on my first real project for current sensing I will start a brand-new thread.

In my previous posts people suggested modeling stuff in a simulator and I know they exist for a reason and it is one area where my skill set and abilities lack so I figured I would round that out.  I usually invest a considerable amount of time into something I want to learn so I want to make sure I pick the right simulator that not only enables me to do what I want but is also intuitive for me to use.

I am actually surprised that nobody here seems to be aware of QSPICE since it is supposed to be a direct replacement for LTspice by the gentleman who developed LTspice.

[JJ_023]

It's somewhat subjective. I've just downloaded and installed TINA-TI to remind me why I didn't get on with it. Schematic entry is a pain. I have to use the scroll bars, where as with LTSpice it automatically scrolls. The scroll wheel doesn't zoom. If I want to put a resistor in series with something, I have to manually break a wires to place it, then reconnect them. LTSpice allows me to put the resistor on top of the wire and it breaks and remakes the connections for me. When inserting wires, they follow the mouse cursor, rather than going point to point, where I click. Rotating a part with wires connected to it breaks the wires. To be fair, I'm currently running it under WINE and I might've downloaded a slightly older version, as I went to a file download site, as I couldn't be bothered to make a TI account to download it from the TI site, so it might not be quite that bad.

LTSpice has some handy generic op-amp models which enable you to alter parameters such as bandwidth, open-loop gain, slew-rate, phase margin etc. I've not seen a similar facility in TINA-TI but it might be possible to create your own or even use LTSpice's if you like, although it seems a faff.

So the current version of TINA-TI is Ver 9 (special complementary addition).  You know it's funny you mentioned the resistor problem of not being able to drop a resistor and it automatically merges.  For me every single component can be dropped in the middle of a wire and it automatically connects.

In TINA-TI if you take "operational amplifier"  then double-click on it you will have a pop-up window.  Look for the row that says "type"
and then click on the drop-down menu ( square with three dots) and then you can enter all sorts of parameters. 

I don't know so you tell me which one has more abilities to tailor a particular operational amplifier?

[MathWizard]

About TINA, do they have most all the TI products in there, but not other companies, much like LTSpice has mainly Linear Technology parts but not much else ?

Years ago I used some simpler circuit sims, and didn't like the look of LTS, but now thats all I use. I should use Ki-cad too sometimes, and try TINA, could help for all the common parts not in LTS. People have made some other models tho for common parts, there's some common libraries of other parts. But some models are a bit dodgy, or if not used right like I might be..

[tggzzz]

What aspects of opamp behaviour, precisely?

Some opamp models are so-called macromodels, which model gross large scale behaviour but not the subtle behaviour. For example, they may be suitable for understanding small signal time domain response but not overload recovery nor noise. And that is independent of the simulator: it is only a function of what's in the model.

If you are only interested in generic opamp operation, then any simulator will be sufficient.

N.B. iMNSHO there is a great deal of value in simulating generic behaviour without worrying about the subtle effects of specific opamp's behaviour. Ditto the subtle behaviour of specific opamps, but that requires detailed accurate models.

I am just learning the basics with operational amplifiers. 

The direction I'm looking to go into would be voltage regulation and current regulation for designing a power supply.  I have picked out a few chips that are interesting to me that specifically focus on those aspects.

Right now I am playing around with the basic operational amplifier circuits that everybody is familiar with when they start.

When I am ready to take on my first real project for current sensing I will start a brand-new thread.

In my previous posts people suggested modeling stuff in a simulator and I know they exist for a reason and it is one area where my skill set and abilities lack so I figured I would round that out.  I usually invest a considerable amount of time into something I want to learn so I want to make sure I pick the right simulator that not only enables me to do what I want but is also intuitive for me to use.

I am actually surprised that nobody here seems to be aware of QSPICE since it is supposed to be a direct replacement for LTspice by the gentleman who developed LTspice.

That sounds like a sensible plan in which you will learn a lot.

The only point I would add is to avoid jumping into simulation too soon. The first action should be to understand how the standard opamp "design patterns" overcome the inherent variability in practical opamps (e.g. the open loop gain may be 10⁴ or 10⁴ but the external resistors constrain the circuit gain to be 1 or 10). Make sure you understand the equations that define such operation. Don't forget the phase/frequency Bode plots and how they indicate a circuit's stability (or otherwise!)

After you understand how the circuit operates in theory, then jump to simulation in order to confirm and cement your understanding.

Any simulator will be sufficient for the above, so choose whichever suits you. They all offer equivalent analysis capabilities, so once you understand the those it becomes trivial to apply the same understanding in a different simulator.

The only time you need to go into more detail is when you need to understand whether your circuit will work better with opamp X or opamp Y. At that point you need detailed models usually produced by the manufacturer, and you have to ensure they are sufficiently accurate for your purposes.

The big picture is that during a career expect to change simulators multiple times. I started in the 1970s with ICAP and ITAP.
Exactly the same principles are used now, with astonishingly little change: ICAP is merely "AC analysis", and ITAP is merely "transient analysis".
The fundamental input is exactly the same: the ASCII netlists. The only difference is that nowadays a GUI is used to create those netlists, and the outputs aren't ASCII graphs drawn with * and + ! Even today, the netlists are visible, e.g. when you specify/modify a component's values, or set the parameters for an analysis.

Summary: just choose a simulator and learn to use it. When beneficial, it is easy to change to another simulator.

[Solder_Junkie]

The only differences are the user interface and the library of parts, "Spice" is the core engine of all of these.

I use LTSpice for Analog Devices parts and Tina for most simple circuits as it seems easier to use. I have purchased the student version of Tina and have used it for several years.

SJ

[Ian.M]

Historically, LTspice was preferred on the sci.electronics.* USENET groups, because it was free and its schematics and symbols were ASCII text files, so could be pasted inline in posts, (most servers back then rejected MIME and other encoded attachments in non 'binaries' groups).   This resulted in a large user community and a lot of third party models, many developed by experts in their field.  The user community has continued to grow.  Its still one of the best options for sharing electronic circuit ideas on forums like this one even though its UI is a bit clunky.   

[magic]

I am actually surprised that nobody here seems to be aware of QSPICE since it is supposed to be a direct replacement for LTspice by the gentleman who developed LTspice.

There is a thread about QSPICE and I'm pretty sure most names appearing in your thread also appeared there, so people are aware. But QSPICE has only arrived a few months ago, AFAIK it is not a drop-in replacement for LTspice (it won't open your existing LTspice schematics), it didn't work on Linux last time I checked, and most long time users of other simulators probably haven't had much reason to try it yet.

If you feel like being a guinea pig or there are particular things about it that you already know other software can't provide, go for it.

I use LTspice because it seemed to be the most popular option a few years ago and it's not too bad. It can run PSPICE models of TI chips available from ti.com, so that's not a problem. OTOH I'm not sure if there are any models of Linear parts that can run under simulators other than LTspice.

[JJ_023]

About TINA, do they have most all the TI products in there, but not other companies, much like LTSpice has mainly Linear Technology parts but not much else ?

Years ago I used some simpler circuit sims, and didn't like the look of LTS, but now thats all I use. I should use Ki-cad too sometimes, and try TINA, could help for all the common parts not in LTS. People have made some other models tho for common parts, there's some common libraries of other parts. But some models are a bit dodgy, or if not used right like I might be..

I honestly don't know how to answer your question because I am not overly familiar with TINA.  I think it is primarily Texas Instruments  based on what I can tell.  For example under operational amplifiers there are roughly 100 options.

I like Ki CaD for circuit design.  I think it's fairly intuitive.  As far as their simulator I am not too keen on it but then again I haven't spent a lot of time with it in that regard.

[JJ_023]

What aspects of opamp behaviour, precisely?

Some opamp models are so-called macromodels, which model gross large scale behaviour but not the subtle behaviour. For example, they may be suitable for understanding small signal time domain response but not overload recovery nor noise. And that is independent of the simulator: it is only a function of what's in the model.

If you are only interested in generic opamp operation, then any simulator will be sufficient.

N.B. iMNSHO there is a great deal of value in simulating generic behaviour without worrying about the subtle effects of specific opamp's behaviour. Ditto the subtle behaviour of specific opamps, but that requires detailed accurate models.

I am just learning the basics with operational amplifiers. 

The direction I'm looking to go into would be voltage regulation and current regulation for designing a power supply.  I have picked out a few chips that are interesting to me that specifically focus on those aspects.

Right now I am playing around with the basic operational amplifier circuits that everybody is familiar with when they start.

When I am ready to take on my first real project for current sensing I will start a brand-new thread.

In my previous posts people suggested modeling stuff in a simulator and I know they exist for a reason and it is one area where my skill set and abilities lack so I figured I would round that out.  I usually invest a considerable amount of time into something I want to learn so I want to make sure I pick the right simulator that not only enables me to do what I want but is also intuitive for me to use.

I am actually surprised that nobody here seems to be aware of QSPICE since it is supposed to be a direct replacement for LTspice by the gentleman who developed LTspice.

That sounds like a sensible plan in which you will learn a lot.

The only point I would add is to avoid jumping into simulation too soon. The first action should be to understand how the standard opamp "design patterns" overcome the inherent variability in practical opamps (e.g. the open loop gain may be 10⁴ or 10⁴ but the external resistors constrain the circuit gain to be 1 or 10). Make sure you understand the equations that define such operation. Don't forget the phase/frequency Bode plots and how they indicate a circuit's stability (or otherwise!)

After you understand how the circuit operates in theory, then jump to simulation in order to confirm and cement your understanding.

Any simulator will be sufficient for the above, so choose whichever suits you. They all offer equivalent analysis capabilities, so once you understand the those it becomes trivial to apply the same understanding in a different simulator.

The only time you need to go into more detail is when you need to understand whether your circuit will work better with opamp X or opamp Y. At that point you need detailed models usually produced by the manufacturer, and you have to ensure they are sufficiently accurate for your purposes.

The big picture is that during a career expect to change simulators multiple times. I started in the 1970s with ICAP and ITAP.
Exactly the same principles are used now, with astonishingly little change: ICAP is merely "AC analysis", and ITAP is merely "transient analysis".
The fundamental input is exactly the same: the ASCII netlists. The only difference is that nowadays a GUI is used to create those netlists, and the outputs aren't ASCII graphs drawn with * and + ! Even today, the netlists are visible, e.g. when you specify/modify a component's values, or set the parameters for an analysis.

Summary: just choose a simulator and learn to use it. When beneficial, it is easy to change to another simulator.

Thank you for such a detailed response.  At this point I think I understand the basics of operational Amplifiers.  I usually don't struggle with equations or math so I feel I can grasp that fairly well. 

I have also played around on bread boards with basic operational amplifier circuits, stuff like inverting and noninverting and creating different gains.

While researching LT spice I know it is possible to import models from different manufacturers as well as writing your own models I am not sure if it could be done with the other two simulators ( my gut feeling is that you can with QSPICE and I have no good feeling about the Texas Instruments product).  Since I prefer Texas Instruments for my components I guess in that regard TINA is a lot more helpful.

The reason I am trying to learn a simulator is because it has been recommended by numerous people on this forum.  I usually follow the advice of recommendations unless I have a valid reason not to follow them based on knowledge of the subject.

[watchmaker]

Have  you looked at Multisim Live?  It is subscription based which has advantages and disadvantages. But it is very intuitive.

[JJ_023]

The only differences are the user interface and the library of parts, "Spice" is the core engine of all of these.

I use LTSpice for Analog Devices parts and Tina for most simple circuits as it seems easier to use. I have purchased the student version of Tina and have used it for several years.

SJ

Thank you for your input.  I am aware that they are all built on the "Spice" model.  I agree with the user interface being simpler on TINA. 

I have a few questions for you in regards to TINA.

What is the main difference between the purchased version that you have and the free download version?

Are you able to import components from other manufacturers?

[JJ_023]

Historically, LTspice was preferred on the sci.electronics.* USENET groups, because it was free and its schematics and symbols were ASCII text files, so could be pasted inline in posts, (most servers back then rejected MIME and other encoded attachments in non 'binaries' groups).   This resulted in a large user community and a lot of third party models, many developed by experts in their field.  The user community has continued to grow.  Its still one of the best options for sharing electronic circuit ideas on forums like this one even though its UI is a bit clunky.

That is such a valid point that you make.  I personally dislike the user experience with LTspice.  But I am aware that they are probably the most prolific simulator out there which is why they have a large community and third-party models. 

Since LTspice has been improved upon tremendously by the original developer of LTspice is why I looked into QSPICE.  I can't really comment on QSPICE because I have not spent enough time with it to be able to discern whether I enjoy it or not.  TINA on the other hand just seems to be a lot more intuitive and easier to use for simple circuits.  I don't know how it would model more complex circuits as I don't have that experience yet.

The reason I am asking all of these questions is because when I get into something I like to spend a lot of time gaining knowledge and experience to a high enough level.  What I don't want to do is become proficient in something that might be either outdated or will limit me in the future. 

What I am doing is gathering bits of data from people such as yourself as data points to help me make a educated guess as to which one to focus on.

[JJ_023]

I am actually surprised that nobody here seems to be aware of QSPICE since it is supposed to be a direct replacement for LTspice by the gentleman who developed LTspice.

There is a thread about QSPICE and I'm pretty sure most names appearing in your thread also appeared there, so people are aware. But QSPICE has only arrived a few months ago, AFAIK it is not a drop-in replacement for LTspice (it won't open your existing LTspice schematics), it didn't work on Linux last time I checked, and most long time users of other simulators probably haven't had much reason to try it yet.

If you feel like being a guinea pig or there are particular things about it that you already know other software can't provide, go for it.

I use LTspice because it seemed to be the most popular option a few years ago and it's not too bad. It can run PSPICE models of TI chips available from ti.com, so that's not a problem. OTOH I'm not sure if there are any models of Linear parts that can run under simulators other than LTspice.

Thank you for your input.  I agree with what you are saying on LT Spice.

QSPICE, My thinking there is as follows.  The guy that created LT Spice is clearly good at what he does.  So when he created QSPICE I am sure he implemented things that he felt he missed in the original design.  I'm sure if you look at some of your projects or circuits that you built in the past if you had a chance to do them over with the experience and knowledge that you have now you would probably make improvements.  That is the reason why I am considering QSPICE.

From what I understand you can run Linear parts on TINA.  I noticed a linear section on one of the drop-down menus for operational amplifiers.  I am not sure if that Is relevant to your point.

[JJ_023]

Have  you looked at Multisim Live?  It is subscription based which has advantages and disadvantages. But it is very intuitive.

Thanks for the suggestion.  I have looked at it although I have never used it.  I have reservations about it.  One of which being a subscription model.  I would much rather pay a couple hundred dollars for a piece of software and be done with it. 

I also think it is on the fringe of the simulator market which means it's probably not going to have as wide a support base for third-party modeling or development. 

I also don't know how robust the modeling that simulator is capable of.  So even though I am doing very basic stuff now when I go to design some of the operational amplifier circuits in the near future I want to be able to model the exact component, I believe all three of the simulators that I am considering will allow me to do that.

I am not sure if it is a standalone model or if it's cloud-based.  I prefer standalone.

Maybe you could share some insights as to why you like it?

Have you tried other simulators?

If you have what are your thoughts on them?

[Solder_Junkie]

“ I have a few questions for you in regards to TINA.

What is the main difference between the purchased version that you have and the free download version?

Are you able to import components from other manufacturers?”
———-
The free version (Tina-TI) is not quite the same as even the lowest cost Student version (around €49), models are not necessarily interchangeable between them, I think Tina-TI is based on an early version of Tina.

I have only created basic component macros in Tina -a couple of transistor types that were not listed.

Last year I used LTSpice for the first time as I needed to resolve a design problem with an Analog Devices power supply protection IC (an LTC4368), not surprisingly there was not only the macro for the IC, but an instantly drawn complete circuit for it from the datasheet! In addition, when I asked Analog Devices about the problem they suggested a fix… not only was it fixed in the simulation, it was fixed in the actual circuit too.

It’s horses for courses, use LTSpice for Analog Devices chips and maybe Tina for Texas Instruments ones as well, if you like. I prefer the UI of Tina, but I am more familiar with using it. Tina appears to have some big name supporters in the training side of industry as well as education.

SJ

[JJ_023]

“ I have a few questions for you in regards to TINA.

What is the main difference between the purchased version that you have and the free download version?

Are you able to import components from other manufacturers?”
———-
The free version (Tina-TI) is not quite the same as even the lowest cost Student version (around €49), models are not necessarily interchangeable between them, I think Tina-TI is based on an early version of Tina.

I have only created basic component macros in Tina -a couple of transistor types that were not listed.

Last year I used LTSpice for the first time as I needed to resolve a design problem with an Analog Devices power supply protection IC (an LTC4368), not surprisingly there was not only the macro for the IC, but an instantly drawn complete circuit for it from the datasheet! In addition, when I asked Analog Devices about the problem they suggested a fix… not only was it fixed in the simulation, it was fixed in the actual circuit too.

It’s horses for courses, use LTSpice for Analog Devices chips and maybe Tina for Texas Instruments ones as well, if you like. I prefer the UI of Tina, but I am more familiar with using it. Tina appears to have some big name supporters in the training side of industry as well as education.

SJ

Thanks for clarifying all of that.