| Author |
Message |
DJ
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 118
|
 16 Sep 2004 20:25 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Let's face it. AWR is very user friendly. If you don't use ADS for long time you find youself learning it again, AWR is diffferent. You find ADS usefull for complicated tasks such as PLL etc. You can Use ADS such as MATLAB. But!!!! for a regular task for example: VCO design, MMIC Amp design , Filters etc AWR is several times faster!!!. You can tune very fast several parameters with the AWR. ADS it takes forever.
Momentum of ADS(EM simulation) is much better than AWR. This is very reliable software and personaly I like it. CST is EM for 3D which you can't do with ADS or AWR.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
greg12345
Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 30
|
| 21 Sep 2004 8:20 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Hi
For me MWO is a good RF software simulator. It's very easy to use and the result is good. With the new version, the Harmonic Balance simulation became faster than Ansoft serenade on several examples.
I had made an oscillator with doubler and I had compraed the practicals results with Ansoft and MWO simulations. MWO was better on harmonic level, bias conditions and frequency.
The ig advantage of ADS is momentum but now with the link with Sonnet with MWO I'm not sure that it is again true. ADS is more expensive than MWO.
Concerning CST, It is not for the same application. I prefer CST than HFSS because it is easier to use. The results are very good even in millimeter frequency. It is like all simulators, you can obtain what you want if you don't use it like with little knowledge. (see benchmark on CST site).
regards
Greg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoaGosha
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 29
Helped: 1
|
| 22 Sep 2004 22:28 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Hi Ppl,
I'm working with @DS,Son,Ie3d and HFSS (for RF ICs)
And always in contact with their support
The bottom line is, that for RF use, every Sim can be
fast & accurate if you are an expert in the specific Sim and
familiar with all the specifications of the Sim.
From my experience for good first order (even higher) results, easy layout drawing,and very fast results the RF mode engine of @DS is the best.And only that engine can simulate whole TX/RX chains
no other simulation would be capable doing since the required
RAM will be beyond 2Gb.
Rgds
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djalli
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 887
Helped: 15
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20500
|
| 25 Sep 2004 3:57 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| ADS is good for planar simulations but nothing beats HFSS in 3D simulations.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheng
Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 111
Helped: 2
|
| 08 Oct 2004 14:10 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
RFIC or even MMIC designer will rarely if ever touch or have touched or know how to PROPERLY setup up HFSS or MWS simulation. The SETUP is the name of the game with the 3D solver (similar to planar tools too) and results may vary alot. Which tool one uses depends on the task one has to solve. MWO is very powerful and easy to use, ADS is even more powerful. BUT price tags differ hugely as well. Suppose one has a 3 designers and needs 3 seats. There is lots of cost involved with ADS - I know no manager that won't go for the cheaper tool that can do say 90% of what the other can do too. 90-10 rule is still alive.
On the other hand if one does need 3D IC simulation, one may well use EM3DS - a very good MOM tool that we use for layout simulation with thickness and all other crap included - that is a real 3D device. One may also use Sonnet or other EM tool if they don't need to worry about thickness effects etc. equally well with AWR, while going for ADS means either Momentum (good one, hands down,) or CST(good one, but for 35k will be underutilized) or go through export filtering.
To me the downside of MWO is EMSight. Too many constraints, and not able to handle many real world situations. Plus the grid nightmare.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
microRF
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 4
|
| 08 Oct 2004 22:41 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| It looks as though AWR is a good choice as well. Anyone use microwave office?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sinatra
Joined: 29 Mar 2002
Posts: 242
Helped: 12
Location: Neverland
|
| 09 Oct 2004 0:01 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Any one knows about a any free software that can also do this type of simulations??
S.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elomatic
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 45
Helped: 7
|
| 12 Oct 2004 16:14 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
I am using @DS and CST as well as HFSS. All programms are quite powerful. But it depends on your problems. For radiating structures the CST is very good and the results are excellent. I sometimes build antennas and compare the results with what I measured. CST is also very easy to use. The manuals are very helpful.
The @DS is better for planar structure but I often import the models from the 3D simulation. It taked a while till you know how to use it. It's very complex but not bad.
HFSS is ok.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EDAgirl
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 9
|
| 13 Oct 2004 11:29 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| I think Ansoft HFSS is very good and powerful for simulating antennas.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
totoone
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 4
|
| 13 Oct 2004 12:16 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| i think microwave studio is the best app but all depends the way you use it!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kheir
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
|
| 22 Oct 2004 10:20 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
hello
due 2 my experience in that field i tell u it depends man on ur application, 4 instance, ADS is the best for system level simulation, layout design and momentum analysis.
mws is the best tool yet suitable for 3D-EM analysis of planar structures.
AWR is intermadiate in my opinion.
goodluck ! 
Last edited by kheir on 22 Oct 2004 10:22; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dowing
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 3
|
| 28 Oct 2004 5:26 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| Hfss is strong in EM simulation, and ADS is good for most circuits and system design. I use them for my RF projects.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riz_aj
Joined: 05 Feb 2002
Posts: 108
Helped: 1
|
| 28 Oct 2004 8:41 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| I agree with consensus on MWO for beginner and moving up to @DS once you had learn your ropes. There some Ansoft tools too to consider, like Nexxim for circuit and of course HFSS. Cadence SpectreRF is very good for RFIC.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mica188
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 45
|
| 01 Nov 2004 16:20 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Hi,
In my case, I need to simulate antennas. I will try the free demo version of SuperNec from Poynting. I wonder if it exist any softwares then that. I need some suggestions beause I'm a beginner too. Once I'm familiare with the antenna part, I need to simulate the whole system. I mean the generator (transmitter or receiver) which related to the transmisson line and then pug to the antenna and see the results ( output results). Any suggestions will appericate.
Thanks,
Mica
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keynote
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 6
|
| 01 Nov 2004 23:02 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
I use Momentum in @ds 2003c for high frequency simulation. Compared to other simulators, I think Momentum has many advantages as following:
-- Easy to configure device structure. Structure can be easily configured and modified in substrate configuration.
-- Adequate accuracy, especialyy for single layer planar stucture.
-- Less simulation time than true 3D simulators, such as HFSS.
But because Momentum is only a 2D or 2.5D simulator, it's not very suitable for complex multilayer structure.
HFSS, which I'm learning now, is more difficult to draw structure and more complex to set boundary and ports, but accurater than Momentum. Just my opinion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deanh
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Posts: 27
Helped: 1
|
| 03 Nov 2004 5:04 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
hi everyone,
I promote the HFSS 8.x, because HFSS 9.x need good performance PC and run slowly on the same case.
The @DS2003 is also good on the RF CKT simulation.
Deanh
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snake
Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 77
Helped: 3
|
| 03 Nov 2004 13:59 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| how about eagleware ??? does it is a goot tool ????? and for what ?????
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zcr35
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 19
|
| 03 Nov 2004 18:33 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Why not try E(at)glew(at)re? it's a complete and fast and easy to use RF beginners and professionals.
You can prove and fast your designs much better than @DS and others. I think the suites' circuits fuction and filter fuction is No.1 in simulation.
I changed my soft from @DS to E(at)glew(at)re the first time I tried it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mica188
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 45
|
| 08 Nov 2004 22:30 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| tch2000 wrote: |
| I use the MWS & XFDTD |
CST MWS does this software have a frequency dependant material feature?
Thanks,
Mica
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RFSimulator
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 176
Helped: 15
Location: Europe
|
| 09 Nov 2004 19:43 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Yes,
MWS has several dispersion models included for the Time Domain Solvers.
If you use the MWS freq. domain solver, you are not limited at all.
F.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mica188
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 45
|
| 09 Nov 2004 19:55 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| RFSimulator wrote: |
Yes,
MWS has several dispersion models included for the Time Domain Solvers.
If you use the MWS freq. domain solver, you are not limited at all.
F. |
If I have to choose one of them ( CST MWS vs XFDTD) which do you prefere for a beginner and also, it can simulate a variety of antenna ( thin wire through complex sturctures). I will do design antenna. If you can choose, then list things which a software should for antenna design.
Thanks,
Mica
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jayxman51
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 9
|
| 08 Dec 2004 13:00 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| I think that @ds or spectreRF would be fine. They arent that hard to use, try those.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wjwreck
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 19
|
| 08 Dec 2004 16:18 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
for circuit ads is better.
for Mw filed hfss is better
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wjwreck
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 19
|
| 08 Dec 2004 16:25 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
though the use of ads is difficult ,i think it is a big company ,and it has a long life.
hfss is very yange de
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bhgaurav
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 32
|
| 08 Dec 2004 19:16 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| recently i compared HFSS and ADs2003 for via fences. I go with HFSS on that. Waveguide simulations are faster and accurate in HFSS
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cmosbjt
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 220
Helped: 8
Location: Boston
|
| 12 Dec 2004 10:12 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| Hi, any suggestion about imulator other than ADS and SpectreRF? You know they are expensive and most small companies can not afford. How about hspice or smartspice?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EDAgirl
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 9
|
| 13 Dec 2004 6:30 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| Now, I found CST MWS is also good, especially for broadband antennas.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigDogBear
Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 24
|
| 16 Dec 2004 3:02 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
| It is very convenient and accurate to use ADS for RF simulation, Just use it, and you'll find your get a right choice.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
littlemmx
Joined: 14 Jun 2003
Posts: 29
|
| 16 Dec 2004 3:53 Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
Which is the best for system simulate?
What about the @nsoft serenade?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
allan681
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 10
|
| 18 Dec 2004 11:46 Re: Which RF simulator is Better ! ! ! |
|
|
|
My choice
1. ads
2. awr
3. cst
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
