Nice idea but it's not very useful without net names or a schematic view. A nice looking UI isn't good if it's not functional
[deleted]
A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
91–100 of 270 posts
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it even a web site? Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but this seems slow and unusable. But more importantly, I have a hard time bringing myself to trust anything that isn't saved locally. edit: Also I feel terrible that my negative comment has any weight in this thread. I don't want to be a detractor. It's just that this is not for me. People work hard to make things and you can't please everybody. You definitely…
Yeah, so we started diode 3 months ago and in the beginning here we're focused mostly on making electronics more accessible to youth/beginners. One major advantage of web based tools is shareability and we hope to see content creators writing articles with embedded diode projects so that tutorials can include inline interactive examples. This is already common in the software world with tools like codesandbox and sta…
I agree with the goal, and agree with web based tooling, but the design-centric approach feels like dangling keys to keep my attention. Anyone who's attention can be captured with dangling keys doesn't have the attention to do circuits.
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#93Circuit Lab (https://www.circuitlab.com/) has been my go-to for a while...
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#94Check out https://store.steampowered.com/app/2198800/CRUMB_Circuit_Sim... also. Excellent UI.
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#95This is a great technical demonstration of how to visualize a circuit board. But I would rather walk over hot coals than try to actually design a circuit using this interface. Circuits can be represented very nicely in two dimensions, which is convenient given that computer screens are two dimensional. For things which are fundamentally 3D (e.g. models of objects) it can be useful for design purposes to have a 3D visualization, but this doesn't seem to be the case with circuits.
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#96what I really want is a circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 02003 because it looks like it was made in 01963
the aesthetics and clarity of the schematics of a tektronix oscilloscope manual from 01963 plus the instant responsivity of the actual 01963 tektronix oscilloscope; but married with the flexibility, generality, reproducibility, and monte carlo capabilities you can get out of modern teraflops desktop hardware, with the scriptability of emacs and the breadth of simulation models you can get in ltspice, and of course not limited to 10 megahertz
i guess it's true that this simulator doesn't look like it was made in 02003 because, after taking several minutes to load, it just displays a blank white page with buttons that don't do anything
circuit simulators almost never did that in 02003, though i guess berkeley spice sort of does until you read its man page
apparently from the other comments it's supposed to be a thing with some kind of 3-d model of a breadboard though? why would you want that? the reason we usually draw schematics before putting together breadboards, and we show each other schematics instead of breadboards, is because breadboards are a terrible user interface for circuits; schematics are much easier to understand because you can organize your components logically instead of being constrained by how things are packaged, and also you can tell what the components are by looking at them
let me recommend a circuit simulator which, though lacking in some ways (especially realistic component simulation and integration with spice and kicad), takes advantage of the possibilities of computers to do better than paper schematics instead of worse: http://falstad.com/circuit/circuitjs.html
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#97For reference, here is a circuit simulator that was ported from a 2005 project and it is 2D. It also visualizes the voltage and current as speed and density of electron packets flowing through the circuit: https://www.falstad.com/circuit/ Maybe a similar sort of visualization could be used for this project? It is neat that it can simulate arduino uno code to pulse IO, as an in-simulation workbench.
I use this a lot for quickly testing things out when I am not entirely sure what I need. It's incredibly powerful, and give you scopes so you can verify things work. It may be very old and look ancient by modern standards but it's much more usable for me. Also I don't need sonmething to simulate an Arduino, I need something to say test a op-amp summing amplifier.
the simulation blows up sometimes
it doesn't look ancient to me
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#98Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#99It sure is pretty, but there's a critical issue. Components can have their pins labeled, but this is done in the 3D environment. Just place them down on the right side. There's plenty of white space there. No one wants to rotate a component around like that and strain their head to read. I'm literally just going to pull up Google and get the schematic there. You have the information but it is displayed in a way that…
Great feedback, we've chatted a bit about this internally already. It's something we'll likely add. In general we're looking for ways to make it easier to see pinouts/voltages/current/etc. Thanks for sharing!
Great to hear. It's hard to put your work out there and you did a good job. User interfaces are hard. What's obvious to some is hostile to others lol
Re: A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still not sure what the 3D aspect in particular adds, though. Tools which work with physical wiring diagrams, like Fritzing, have been available for ages, and I don't think the 2D nature of those tools has ever been a meaningful obstacle to understanding.
In my opinion, 3D is useful if: a) You want to check that your components won't physically bash into something else you care about b) You are designing something that operates at RF to mm-wave frequencies and need to worry (a lot) about the spatial location of the high-frequency components and nearby conductors / ground planes c) You want to get an idea about airflow and heat dissipation on power electronics and/or m…
i agree, those would be good reasons for 3d