Thanks for a reasonable response to my post. Yes, an initial investment is often needed, but that ought to be an investment that deals with non-standard components that are not of common interest. Second, before your response, no one (at least as I read it) said that you could save the spice directives with the symbol itself. People talked about copying and pasting things from an existing schematic, but that is not the same thing.
This rekindles my interest in gschem. One followup question - is it possible to pack symbols with commonly used public domain spice models and create a library that other users of gschem can employ (and would then be able to use without all that initial investment of time) ? If yes, why has no one ever done it (the project is pretty mature) ? If no, what are the legal / technical reasons for that choice ? Its not just LTSpice. kicad (not that I have used it, but reading from the descriptions) supposedly also does a more seamless spice simulation AND has pcb layout tools integrated. Not embedding the commonly available spice models for common components appears to be a retrograde choice for gschem. But I am happy to hear that the symbols can be saved with the model itself. Whether or not a proper shared library can be created is a different matter. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Geoff Swan <[1]shinobi.j...@gmail.com> wrote: Most tools require some preliminary investment in terms of setting up libraries to the satisfaction of the user, plus general familiarisation. I think you will find you only need to modify your symbol once to include the appropriate SPICE directives. If you save this symbol you can then reuse it (not trying to make you suck eggs here but this argument seems stalled to the point of stating the obvious). The purpose of gschem does not include containing a library of symbols that include all possible spice and pcb footprint information. gEDA includes gattrib to ease the process of customising symbols - this is not the only method of adding/editing attributes though. Comparing gEDA with LTSpice is a bit odd once you understand the purpose of gEDA. LTSpice by definition has all the SPICE information for all its library components - but I'll warrent it has very little information about component footprints. gEDA is much more powerful and versatile than LTSpice but does require you to do a bit of manual work to begin with. There is discussion about creating a database separate to gschem that may in the future provide SPICE symbol data for standard components. Depending on how this is integrated into the workflow, perhaps this would ease your concerns. Not much help at this stage though... All the best, Geoff _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [2]geda-u...@moria.seul.org [3]http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user References 1. mailto:shinobi.j...@gmail.com 2. mailto:geda-user@moria.seul.org 3. http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user