Micro-Cap 12 (circuit simulation) -vs- LTSpice

[Mecanix]

Just found out that Micro-Cap, apparently a once costly world-best industrial grade circuit sim, is now literally free of charge. Have anyone here dumped their LTSpice sim (which is what I'm using) for Micro-Cap?

Just do it and don't look back? or remain on LTSpice? advice/pro&con welcome!

[Zero999]

I've used it once and prefer LTSpice.

Many people prefer Micro-Cap, over LTSpice, because they find the user interface more intuitive and easier to use. I found LTSpice to be very user friendly and most of my questions were answered using a search engine.

Other than the user interface, which is subjective, LTSpice has the advantage of still being updated. Micro-Cap is no longer in active development and might stop working in the future, due to operating system incompatibility.

[SiliconWizard]

I now use both. But yeah, the fact Micro-cap isn't being updated will become a problem.

UI is more polished in Micro-cap, but that's a matter of taste. The only thing that really matters to me is that the waveform viewer is infinitely better in Micro-cap. LTSpice's one sucks and has a few annoying quirks and bugs.

Micro-cap also has a measurement system that's nice to use, whereas LTSpice only offers you what Spice does, so all measurements are defined with Spice directives and will appear in the Spice log. That's rough. If I want a pure Spice experience I'll use ngspice...

Creating new parts from Spice models is also much easier to do in Micro-cap.

LTSpice is nice and fast, but remember it's made free to use as a promotion tool for Linear (now Analog Devices). It can absolutely be used as a general-purpose simulator, but don't expect AD to make your life easier for this.

[Benta]

There are dedicated forums for this here. Moderator will probably move your thread.

[nctnico]

Micro-Cap is no longer in active development and might stop working in the future, due to operating system incompatibility.

That is not a problem. All PCs that are still in running order are capable of running a virtual machine with an older version of Windows.

[Simon]

There are dedicated forums for this here. Moderator will probably move your thread.

which one do you suggest?

[Mecanix]

On the maintenance concern, interestingly enough it asked me to update its library and another module right after dwloading and installing the latest release. I could be wrong but that would suggest that someone/somewhere is maintaining the product a way or another. Beside, hard to imagine that after so many dev/years bugs remains in that piece of kit  But again what do I know...

Guess I'll have to give it a go for a week or two and see how it goes. Kinda like the fact that it's far easier to create objects than the other... LTSpice's .inc and linking can be a pita for that occasionally.

Appreciate the comments and advice so far! thanks guys

[Benta]

which one do you suggest?

How about the EDA section here?
I sees something called "LTSpice" to start.

[Simon]

spice is not a layout design tool and I see no LTSpice section, we are also discussing micro-cap

[Benta]

You're right, I must have had a brain fart here. Sorry. My only excuse is, that I was simultaneously on another CAD forum at the time.

[Mecanix]

Slightly misplaced considering the majority of the topics in this section of the forum are existing projects. Thought it would be qualified in the Designs section though, and certainly does qualify in the Technical Stuff one... you should see the advanced circuits they left under Help > Sample Circuits. It's absolutely mind blowing... you should give it a go, Benta

Link up (for those of you who were unaware), judge by yourselves guys. Personally I'm little less than 4hrs in + 2 tutorials and I'm already sold (you'll be missed, LTS...)
http://www.spectrum-soft.com/download/download.shtm

[Simon]

Well I would rename the forums, most peoples ego's will not permit them to use the beginners section. I use the beginners and technical sections as "simple questions" and "more complicated questions

[nctnico]

spice is not a layout design tool and I see no LTSpice section, we are also discussing micro-cap

EDA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_design_automation is more than schematics & layout. Simulation is part of it.

[Simon]

Yes but the section is for board design software really, if there is to be a ltspice section then there needs to be one for each major simulator out there or a subsection for all simulators maybe in there.

[nctnico]

Well, the description for the  EDA / general section says simulation as one of the subjects. IMHO this topic would fit better in EDA / general section. But maybe the thread is finished anyway since there is already a recent and similar thread in the EDA / general section. There is a big 'meh' factor to moving this thread.

[PKTKS]

Yes but the section is for board design software really, if there is to be a ltspice section then there needs to be one for each major simulator out there or a subsection for all simulators maybe in there.

I have suggested that a while ago...

Very limited enthusiasm ... but as it seems...

It may definitively be handy to organize that asap.

Things tend to evolve rather fast from now several options available..

reference
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/eda/request-to-new-level1-topicgt-spice/

Paul

[cdev]

You should create a forum here for people who are interested in learning and using the frozen free Microcap. That would be a real service to people like me (beginner, really) who have never used a full featured program like that and especially would like to try the simulation.

[Peabody]

Sorry to revive this thread, but it's directly relevant to a problem I've had with LTSpice.  I've had trouble bringing in non-LT part models, particularly opamps.  Particularly Microchip, but TI as well.  The models simply don't work in LTSpice.  There appears to be no solution for this, and I wondered if things might go better using the now free Micro-Cap.  I'm hoping the Micro-Cap library already has a large number of parts from a variety of manufacturers, possibly even Microchip opamps like the MCP6041.  But in general, do third-party models written for PSpice generally run ok in Micro-Cap?  All the Microchip models say "Use PSPICE (other simulators may require translation)", but of course there's no information about "translation", and PSpice is not free.  So I wondered if Micro-Cap might do better with these than LTSpice.

[SiliconWizard]

I'm hoping the Micro-Cap library already has a large number of parts from a variety of manufacturers, possibly even Microchip opamps like the MCP6041.

I just checked, and it does have the MCP6041.

But in general, do third-party models written for PSpice generally run ok in Micro-Cap?  All the Microchip models say "Use PSPICE (other simulators may require translation)", but of course there's no information about "translation", and PSpice is not free.  So I wondered if Micro-Cap might do better with these than LTSpice.

This would be very hard to tell. You'll have to experiment. Don't be afraid - Micro-Cap is not only free now, but it's also not a huge install (at least compared to most newer tools) - it takes 293 MB on my computer.

The only thing one can say is that Micro-Cap was definitely made to be an independent simulator, so chances that it supports a wider range of Pspice models are certainly higher than with LTSpice.

[Peabody]

Thanks very much.  I will install it and see how it goes.  But just out of curiosity, it will be interesting to see if the Micro-Cap model for the MCP6041 is the same as Microchip's, and if not, whether the Micro-Cap model will also run in LTSpice.

[SiliconWizard]

Dug deeper...

The Microchips models are found in the file "mc.lib" in the LIBRARY subdirectory of MC12.
It's in text form, and one can see that it's a collection of the original Microchip models, with the Microchip license terms. You can extract the model and try it in LTSpice if you want, but I doubt it's different from the one you already have.

Looking at Properties of the part in MC12, one can see that MC12 supports several Spice variants: Spice 2G, PSpice, Spice 3, HSpice, Micro-cap Spice, Ambiguous and "Not Spice".
Not sure what the latter means. But the MCP6041, for instance, is identified as "Ambiguous". That probably means that it's not strictly conforming to a specific variant of Spice (which may explain why LTSpice chokes on the model), but is a mix of several. But MC12 has no problem using it. So that itself makes it clear that MC12 seems to support a lot more models (and be more clever about it) than LTSpice.

[Peabody]

Thanks again.  Actually, two lines are different:

G35 33 0 TABLE {V(35,3)} ((-1,-1n)(0,0)(3.4k,1n))(3.5k,1))       Microchip
G35 33 0 TABLE {V(35,3)} ((-1,-1n)(0,0)(3.4k,1n)(3.5k,1))         Micro-Cap

G36 33 0 TABLE {V(35,4)} ((-3.5k,-1)((-3.4k,-1n)(0,0)(1,1n))     Microchip
G36 33 0 TABLE {V(35,4)} ((-3.5k,-1)(-3.4k,-1n)(0,0)(1,1n))       Micro-Cap

However, the Micro-Cap model doesn't run in LTSpice either.  So I just need to install MC and see if I can replace LTSpice altogether - unless there are things that only run under LTSpice.

[SiliconWizard]

The parentheses in the Microchip version look weird.

The only thing you can expect not to run are all LTSpice-specific models, which probably make up 80% of all models provided with LTSpice (namely most LT and AD models). LTSpice uses proprietary extensions for many of them. At least for LT parts - many AD parts still have regular Spice models, maybe not the more recent ones. For the rest, I see no reason.

LTSpice is also probably faster for some circuits, as its engine is multi-threaded (even though it's not the most efficient multi-threaded I've seen, it's still faster than single-threaded simulation.) I'm not sure MC12 is.