[HN Gopher] A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was ma...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A circuit simulator that doesn't look like it was made in 2003
        
       Author : malerba118
       Score  : 76 points
       Date   : 2022-12-14 21:42 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.withdiode.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.withdiode.com)
        
       | jonathankoren wrote:
       | Skeuomorphism? No thanks. I'd rather keep the circuit plan clear.
        
       | SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
       | Schematics are for _understanding_ what a circuit does.
       | 
       | Breadboards are for prototyping small low-speed circuits.
       | 
       | Veroboard is for prototyping larger medium-speed circuits.
       | 
       | Gerbers & a PCB are for production and for prototyping large or
       | high-speed circuits.
       | 
       | If the tool could automatically make a 3D breadboard view from a
       | schematic, it'd be pretty neat for beginners. If the tool warned
       | you when the normal parasitic capacitance between breadboard rows
       | would cause problems with a part you're using, that'd be
       | _amazing_ for teaching.
        
       | mtreis86 wrote:
       | Are there any inductors or transformers? I don't see any on the
       | left parts panel. I want to make an oscillator.
        
       | heywherelogingo wrote:
       | The ones from 2003 worked - this is mostly blank and does
       | nothing.
        
       | proee wrote:
       | This is great for learning - you should consider a mode that
       | switches to traditional schematic view so people can understand
       | the corresponding circuit.
        
         | steve_adams_86 wrote:
         | I believe another web-based tool which can do this already is
         | https://www.flux.ai
         | 
         | I've noodled around with it and I like it, but I actually find
         | working with pencil, paper, and the actual components to be
         | more efficient than panning and zooming around a 3d
         | environment. It's not always an option so these simulators are
         | very useful, but I've come to realize I'm far better off by
         | planning _not_ to use these tools, I guess.
        
       | pkstn wrote:
       | Wow, so awesome!
        
       | Kwpolska wrote:
       | The competition might look ancient, but IMO, a 2D interface would
       | be much more productive and easier to work with. This site is
       | completely unusable for me in Firefox (it does work in Edge
       | though).
        
         | MichaelZuo wrote:
         | The title does seem like a misaimed comparison.
        
         | Gigachad wrote:
         | Does the page just show up mostly blank for anyone else?
        
         | Taniwha wrote:
         | doesn't seem to work on chrome either
        
           | CoffeePython wrote:
           | Hey! Would love to investigate and see why this isn't working
           | for you. Any more info on your OS/specs/browser version or
           | what exactly isn't working? Should work on chrome.
        
           | jakear wrote:
           | Do you perhaps have "Advanced Security" mode enabled, where
           | JIT is disabled for new sites? Site was super jank at first
           | but once I added it to my exception list it was buttery on my
           | M1.
        
         | CoffeePython wrote:
         | Yeah on my machine it's a lot slower using Firefox than chrome.
         | We can investigate and see why it's happening.
         | 
         | Also I do agree that 2D interface is probably important to add
         | at some point too!
         | 
         | I think right now the skeuomorphism is nice for folks wanting
         | to get their hands dirty with circuit projects but don't have
         | all the materials/supplies available for whatever reason
         | (cost/space/etc)
        
           | macintux wrote:
           | macOS Safari (2020 Intel MacBook Pro) is unusably slow.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | cpcallen wrote:
         | Also doesn't seem to work in Chrome: I see a toolbar and the
         | rest of the page is blank.
        
         | malerba118 wrote:
         | 3d opens up a few extra possibilities for us, but i think
         | there's definitely advantages to 2d as well and seeing every
         | solder joint on the arduino board is just a waste of cpu/memory
         | at the moment. We have some camera presets that let you
         | position the camera directly overhead for a top-down view which
         | effectively is a 2d building experience. We might create a
         | dedicated 2d view if there's enough demand for it!
        
         | duskwuff wrote:
         | So many times this. There is a reason why engineers use
         | schematics instead of assembly diagrams or renderings when
         | designing circuits or discussing how they operate. In
         | particular, layouts on solderless breadboards tend to become
         | incomprehensible for any sort of even mildly complex circuit.
        
       | gumboza wrote:
       | I want 2003. That's the last time anything worked.
       | 
       | LTspice for example.
        
       | melony wrote:
       | Are you using SPICE for the actual simulation?
        
         | CoffeePython wrote:
         | Hey! I work on Diode w/ Austin (OP). Yeah we use a wasm-
         | compiled version of ngSpice for the circuit simulation.
        
           | etimberg wrote:
           | Cool! We did something similar when I was on the team that
           | built multisim.com
        
             | tiagod wrote:
             | That's so cool that there's a web version now! I was
             | introduced to multisim back in high-school and enjoyed that
             | unit a lot, will play around with it on the weekend :)
        
       | IshKebab wrote:
       | Pretty cool, though I would say that a breadboard is probably a
       | worse UI for capturing circuits than whatever we had in 2003.
       | 
       | But it is fair that e.g. LTspice has a terrible GUI. I always
       | thought QUCS had the best UI of all the free options:
       | 
       | https://qucs.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html
       | 
       | Unfortunately it's not the most popular project.
        
         | malerba118 wrote:
         | 3d does present some additional challenges, but we decided to
         | go this route to reduce friction for beginners who might not
         | understand how schematics or other abstract representations map
         | to the real world circuits they're playing with
        
           | duskwuff wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | azalemeth wrote:
             | 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 modules (such as
             | power amplifiers) that come with their own heatsinks (some
             | SIPs do!)
             | 
             | Kicad and the other bits of hobby software that do a 3D
             | render (such as diptrace) tend to do it for reasons (a) and
             | (c). Software that does (b) properly costs hundreds of
             | thousands of EUR$PS per year to rent and tends to have a UI
             | that makes you scream with frustration at every possible
             | moment.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | pugworthy wrote:
       | Ah skeuomorphism my old friend. So good to see you!
        
       | oscillonoscope wrote:
       | 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
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-14 23:00 UTC)