Which RF simulator is Better ! ! !

My choice

1. CST
2. DS
3. MO

Duncan,
i believe the most important reason is difference between the momentum and em-sight. When you design and simulate a planar structure with em-sight you have to pay attention in the number of cells (they cant be odd), and in many other things. Besides if you are a structure with a dimension >> of the other one the simulator give no results. In Momentum you are quite sure the simulator works and gives you good results
regards

Duncan_Widman,
We prefare to use Momentun, EM simulation of ADS. If we use AWR for the schematic simulation then we creat an S parameters from the ADS momentun to use it for the AWR.
D.J

Hi,
you can't compare these three software because they are different.
@DS is a circuital software and it is a very good software but for a beginner is not advised. This software have got even a planar (2D and half) EM module;
@WR is another circuital software and it is a good software recommended for a beginner user. Do not use the planar EM simulator the results are not good;
@ST is a 3D EM simulator it is very good especially for radiating problem.

Another good 3D EM simulator is @FSS especially for planar problem.

Bye.

Hi danelad, molloy,

Ok, I understand what you are saying - when I was designing MMICs I would use AWR for all the simulation, optimization, etc, and use a combination of IE3D and EMSight for the EM simulations.

We understand that designers to have strong preferences for their EM simulators - that's why we created the EM Socket, so that other EM simulators could plug seamlessly into AWR. Simulators from Sonnet, MEMS Research, Optimal, and OEA have been announced, and more are coming.

rainer - I'm sorry, but your statement about EMSight is contradicted by years of good results. If you are having issues with the results you're getting and you're a current customer, please send them into support@mwoffice.com. There are just a few guidelines to setting up a problem for accurate simulation in EMSight; if you haven't used a 'closed' simulator like Sonnet before it might be new to you, but it's easy to learn.

Best Regards,

Duncan

MWO for beginners, @DS for advanced applications

My preference is @DS because it can do so much IF you have
deep enough pockets to pay for the licences !

- System level simulations can be done
- All sorts of time/frequency RF sims can be done
- DSP/digital simulations can be linked to RF simulations (can the others do this ?) if you have the ptolemy license
- EM simulation can be done
- Circuit layout
- VHDL output from digital circuits (haven't tried this though)
- Control of GPIB test gear : direct import of test results
- Design tools and guides.. many example files to start from
- and a lot more !

I could go on but then it would sound even more like an advert for the
simulator and I don't work for @gilent !

Martin

MWO2003 is good for a beginner RF designer but i think not for professional because it use moment-based for solving maxwel's equetion and so it is so slow when the problem get big...
i find mwstudio more better than MWO. it is faster and its response is acceptable.

Why don`t you choose Ansoft HFSS and Designer??
Are they not very strong?
i think Designer is lack of library!

hi everyone,
i m now using IE3D, version 9.0, software to simulate a quasi yagi antenna.....but the result shows great difference from FDTD software, with same antenna design. Is there anyone who can enlighten me why is this so?

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.

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

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

ADS is good for planar simulations but nothing beats HFSS in 3D simulations.

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.

It looks as though AWR is a good choice as well. Anyone use microwave office?

Any one knows about a any free software that can also do this type of simulations??
S.

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.

I think Ansoft HFSS is very good and powerful for simulating antennas.

i think microwave studio is the best app but all depends the way you use it!