.ASC FILES unreadable on Mac Sonoma 1.4
- Thread starter brianco
- Start date
I agree that it's annoying when people post the .asc or .pdf files instead of a simple screen shot of the schematic. That said, there is a (pretty bad) Mac version of LTspice available from ADI. That may work for you. I boot a Windoze box when I need access to LTspice as my Apple M2 won't support those sorts of shenanigans.
Tom
Tom
Does the official Mac version not work on new M2 Macs? Works on intel ones
https://www.analog.com/en/resources/design-tools-and-calculators/ltspice-simulator.html
Brian
https://www.analog.com/en/resources/design-tools-and-calculators/ltspice-simulator.html
Brian
If you download and install LTSpice from the link I posted above, you will be able to open the .asc files. You will see the circuit diagram and can interact with it like it was a real circuit by feeding a signal in and connecting scopes, analysers etc to the circuit and see how it behaves
There is a whole thread on how to install and use LTSpice in the software section that has everything you need to know
It’s a steep learning curve if you haven’t done anything like this before, but it really is worth it
Brian
Convention usually specifies a file extensions, but as you point out above, .tar.gz works and has two extensions. I usually use .tgz myself, but again, the file could be named anything, even something like foo:tz or even just foo. Another example (as I am a command line kind of guy) is evince foo where foo is a pdf file. Works fine. You really can get into alot of trouble security wise if your code assumes a file type based on name. You should always assume the file contents are a malicious attempt to hack your system via a buffer overflow or some other hack.
Thanks to you all. 👍
I have no need whatever for Spice - other than to read basic schematics. At the age of 82 I have no capacity to engage in a totally new learning curve. So - it appears - I will have to remain ignorant of some what appear to be interesting concepts!
Oh, it installs just fine. It executes too. But all it gives you is a menu bar. No window opens where you can draw a schematic. Admittedly, my patience is limited for most things and extremely so for software, so maybe it is possible to make it work but I haven't been able to despite several tries.
The Windoze version is awful but at least I can create a schematic and simulate it.
Sure. But all I'm interested in is to see the schematic in a thread. Having to download the schematic file and install a program to view it seems like a lot of work compared to just looking at a picture in a thread. It's not hard to take a screenshot. I use CMD-4 on Mac all the time. I'm pretty sure Shift-PrtSc still works on Windoze, though it isn't smart enough to allow you to crop.
Tom
ASC files are simply text files, and can be opened with TextEdit (Open-with), and Vi/cat in any terminal.
When opened by LTSpice they show the nice schematic, but it's not 100% necessary.
If you want, rename the extension to '.txt' and they will perhaps be more accessible.
Right click or two finger click the background and the menu is there. It’s different, but works ok when you are used to it
Brian
Sounds like an interesting project for someone to write a forum plug in or something to convert .asc to an image to show in the forum, but that’s beyond me I’m afraid
Brian
Spice files like *.ASC are CAD files, not for "viewing". Their purpose goes way beyond your curiosity. I agree that posts should include a *.PNG image as well as the spice files, but not pdf. A .PNG (or GIF or JPG) file is compact, efficient and generic, while a pdf is not, especially on a Mac. A Mac *.numbers file is full of useless trash and bloated, in the example I dealt with, from 22K excel to 750K Bytes numbers. This is typical of Mac software. Sure, there is plenty of PC trash, and Windows is becoming almost as heavy handed, but don't complain that the world doesn't pander to the intitled Mac minority. We are not going to dumb down our posts for those who don't do simulations.
Are you for real right now? I ran simulations for 8-10 hours a day, every day when I worked for National Semiconductor and Texas Instruments. This isn't about not being willing to run a simulation. This is about communication. What do you think communicates a circuit more easily; a CAD file that I need to download and open using crappy software or an image showing the schematic attached to a forum post?
Oh... And by the way. Entitled is spelled with an e. Maybe you should get over your superiority complex.
Tom
Oh... And by the way. Entitled is spelled with an e. Maybe you should get over your superiority complex.
Tom
"
I am 82 yo and if anyone thinks that I should learn what is a professional application [which has far too often found itself in the most unprofessional hands] then I really do question their intelligence.
I despair when I sees so many posts - from amateurs - which infer deep knowledge when in the real world that knowledge is based on a less than perfect understanding of simulation software and of
the models' used!
tomchr clearly has underlined the purpose of my original post. 😇
I am 82 yo and if anyone thinks that I should learn what is a professional application [which has far too often found itself in the most unprofessional hands] then I really do question their intelligence.
I despair when I sees so many posts - from amateurs - which infer deep knowledge when in the real world that knowledge is based on a less than perfect understanding of simulation software and of
the models' used!