Re: LT Spice looks

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:18:49 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:15fajjdaci5k28sjc5c93da5p78ji0h8on@4ax.com...

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:20:20 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:aq7ajj59feghbv9cbdr5ip42ffqlbtl607@4ax.com...

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:09:14 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote in message news:nbr9jj5rkdrs81tgi1iv2ar8p1f9klu084@4ax.com...

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:02:36 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0ul9jj906v7pungdbs1u82mrqel9lv7tlr@4ax.com...

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:26:30 -0500, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:33h9jjhk0tb3vm31r4fatp265q3dt22mem@4ax.com...

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:17:31 -0500, legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>

On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:30:44 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
>

Have you noticed that an LT Spice schematic looks different if you
open it on different computers? The fonts seem to change.

>
Picture is worth a thousand words here.
>
Different ?
>
RL

>
Mostly fonts. Some can come from different settings, but even with the
same settings things are weird.
>
As one zooms in and out, font scaling does not track graphic scaling.
Try it. The length of strings jumps around. So if you make something
look good at some zoom level, it gets ugly at others, like text
overlapping parts and such.

>
It's always done that since I've been using it.
>

>
And there are different grids for parts and lines and for different
kinds of text. So it's hard to keep stuff aligned.
>
All that makes it hard to draw a neat schematic.

>
I've worked in plenty of places where you didn't get to draw your own schematic so you just had to deal with the fact that
although
it produced a correct netlist it didn't look anything like what you'd have drawn yourself.
>

>
I believe that a beautiful schematic, for simulation or for a real
PCB, works better than an ugly schematic.
>
I see real horrors posted here, and elsewhere.

>
If the netlist and PCB layout is correct then why waste time on making the schematic look like you want it, only to be told
by
someone else that they would have drawn it completely differently?
>

>
The time spent making a schematic look good is essentially another
design review, more eyeball time on the problem.

>
A good engineer will do that anyway, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design will look good to someone else.
>

>
And who dares to order a design engineer to change his schematic?

>
LOL some of the managers I've worked for.
And drawing office people who weren't going to let you use your own logic symbols or other symbols.

>
I remember long ago when we had draftsmen who took sketches and drew
schematics on paper, with straight lines. Some of their stuff was ugly
too.
>
Now, most engineers enter schematics themselves. All the logic symbols
come out of a company-shared library.
>
I still like to start with a D-size pencil-on-paper schematic, partly
because I don't need to use library parts at the early stage of
design.

>
I sometimes draw parts of a circuit on paper, usually when I want to calculate something or sketch/brainstorm something, but I
haven't drawn a full schematic on paper directly myself since somewhere around 1988.
>

>
>
>

>

>
Well, I do insist that my engineers treat a Spice schematic like a
real document, with proper title block, author, date revision control.
>
The sloppy software hacking mentality is terrible when applied to
hardware design.

>
But not long ago you were agreeing with me about trying things out, either in your mind or as an experimental prototype.
Isn't that just like trying things out in software?

>
Simulations, sketches, brainstorming, breadboards are quick and easy,
and encourage people to think and change their minds. But
production-quality multilayer PC boards are not the most efficient way
to experiment.

>
Ok so the question is when do you switch from Simulations, sketches, brainstorming etc to revision control?
The schematics people post here are not usually under revision control so they don't need "proper title block, author, date
revision
control."
I can think of no reason why anyone would get upset about the absence of this information on such a schematic.

>
It answers the questions     What the hell is this?    Who did this?
>
A few years later, it's best to know this stuff.

>
Once it's in my filing system it will probably never be seen again.

>
Never see the Spice model again? That certainly reduces the
documentation requirements.
>
Around here, even whiteboard sketches are titled and dated and
photographed and archived in a project folder.

>
If I worked in whiteboard marketing I'd certainly push that as a must have.
Must be more than 30 years ago when I first saw a whiteboard which could put it all on paper.
I'm not sure what happened to the papers. They were likely filed and...
>
I'm sure they would have had such a whiteboard here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
But the issue there is that the engineer, Anderson, should not have been invited to the meeting at all.

We just write the title, peoples names, and the date and shoot a pic
with a cell phone.