kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/12/2015 11:31 AM, xarx@xxxxxx wrote:
> First of all, sorry for my late answer, and that I'm going to put all my
> answers into a sigle e-mail. Because the public mail service I'm using had a
> breakdown, was unavailable for the whole day, and the latest messages were
> lost.
> 
>> I agree with Wayne and JP, KiCAD is not designed to be a simulator, but
> could be a nice
>> interface to the few good Existing Spice Simulators (LTspice and Tina TI
> come to mind for
>> stand-alone products) while expensive commercial ECAD products have their
> own
>> simulation tools.
> 
> Exactly. KiCad is not a simulator, but it could be used as a "nice interface"
> for one.

We hope some day that we can support simulation directly.  For the time
being, we can do our best to support exporting spice netlists for
simulation in external tools.

> 
>> If you are not interested in making these changes, just say so and that's
>> the end of it.
> 
> If we won't be able to agree on anything better, I'll do that the way you
> suggest it. I thought that was clear, so I'm surprised that you're still
> bringing this topic back.

I'm not sure what you mean by better.  If you have something better in
mind than my suggestions, let us know what that is.  Your original
proposal was not a workable solution in the long term.  My counter
proposal is a more maintainable solution that doesn't violate our policy
of generic symbol libraries.  It is more work up front but in the long
run it is a better solution until the new schematic file format is
implemented.  At that time, we can discuss a more complete solution for
support for simulations in symbol libraries.

> Nevertheless, I'd like to have a full-featured AND officially supported KiCad
> integration with Spice or other good simulation software. This was also
> suggested a few days ago by someone else in another thread.

KiCad would be more than happy to have official support for simulation.
 It's been discussed many times before.  Irregardless of what level of
support we provide, my expectation is that it will be well designed and
maintainable.  This means that the low level code should be flexible
enough to handle any simulation we desire.  I will not accept a bunch of
unrelated hacks just to support simulation.  This takes a lot of careful
planning and good design practices to implement properly.  I will also
expect a high level of stability before I allow any simulation code in
the KiCad code base.

> But you (and JP) are repeating that that's an utopia, that's too much
> maintenance, that everyone does it his own way anyway etc. And if I try to
> suggest something, or present a counter-argument, then you answer with that
> you are the project leader. 

You made no counter argument.  You merely tried to convince me that your
original patch was the way to go.  If you have something different in
mind above and beyond my recommendations to your original patch, then
let us know what you are proposing.  I just gave you the minimum
requirements that I will accept before I commit your patch.  That does
not mean that KiCad is not interested in providing simulation nor should
you interpret it as such.

> Well, you are. That's why I asked you to present your plans concerning KiCad
> and Spice (or any other simulation software) integration. 
> 
>>> Can you confirm that or explain your view of
>>> possible KiCad - Spice integration? Because every other your answer in this
>>> area depends on your general view of this integration.
> 
> Can you - please - explain what lever of integration is acceptable for you,
> whether you have any prepared plans and what they are, whether any work or
> analysis has been done already, what is the expected time-frame etc.? And if
> your plans cover nothing more than the suggested "spice" user field, can you
> present some arguments why don't you want a better integration? If this
> information is already available somewhere, could you please point me there so
> that you don't need to repeat it and I can read it?

There is no unacceptable level of simulation integration for the project
that can think of.  Only unacceptable implementations of said simulation
integration.  We have an initial circuit simulation section in the KiCad
road map[1].  If want to change or add more detail to this road map,
propose any changes for discussion and once we have a consensus, I will
update it and add it to the next development cycle road map.

[1]:http://ci.kicad-pcb.org/job/kicad-doxygen/ws/Documentation/doxygen/html/md_Documentation_development_road-map.html#simulation

> 
> I'm not going to comment on the rest of the e-mails.
> 
> Thank you,
>            Martin.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Vystup z řady a zřiď si taky originální email! @bigboss.cz, @dablik.cz, @potvurka.cz, @tajny.cz... zdarma na http://email.sms.cz
> COMDOM Antispam - www.comdomsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>