Which is more accurate in simulations ADS, MWO or Eagleware?

[redhat]

which is more accurate in simulations ADS, MWO or eagleware?

 

[khouly]

eagleware em

the accuracy depends on ur model , and the accuracy of the problem definition

but @DS is very powerfull with alot of features
MWO is good choise also , decent user interface and good simulation options

but the best Harmonics balance simulator is @DS

khouly

 

[armsgroup]

eagleware em simulation

I think if you r talking abou active circuit ADS is the best but in case of passive microstrip circuit MWO is faster and nearly give the same results as ADS also it has large no of aptimization algorithms that may help in designs

 

[djalli]

eagleware simulator

which is more accurate in simulations @DS, MWO or eagleware?

You must look first of all who has resources better to go to each manifacturer and get models and second who has the resources to better implement these models in theor program.

The answer is Agilent.

 

[tieuquaybk]

camelrf

is @DS the same as @gilent ?
sorry for silly question

 

[khouly]

eagleware

@DS is on of the products of @gilent EESOF dept

about @DS momentun for passive simulation it is great , i have designed a filters using it ,
it is very good , also the model composer in it is great , and speed the design cycle very much

khouly

 

[camel_RF]

Re: ADS-MWO-Eagleware

Hi,

Allow me to add my 2-cent comment here:

ADS is very useful for active and passive simulation. It also have 2D RF simualtion - Momentum. I personally feel that this is like the most luxuary class CAD tool. Plus, it is an expenisve tool.

MWO is very useful for passive simulation. It is far more faster in term of simulation time and less user interface compare to ADS. It can be a good tool if you required only S-parameter simulation. I had used the "tuning" mode in this tool and find that it is more faster and better than ADS.

Eaglewave is very uselful for filter design. It have the most comprehensive filter design tool. ADS have improved the filter synthesis design recently. However, Eaglewave is best suit for filter design.

Hope this help on some general understanding.

CamelRF

 

[wjnbry]

Re: ADS-MWO-Eagleware

eagleware is more faster than those anyone esle.
and it is easy to design pll,vco and impedance match.
i've used it for 3 years.

 

[djalli]

Re: @DS-MWO-Eagleware

eagleware is more faster than those anyone esle.
and it is easy to design pll,vco and impedance match.
i've used it for 3 years.

true! For specific designs one software is better in terms of speed,design,performance etc. than the other but ADS is a complete package.

 

[BigBoss]

@DS-MWO-Eagleware

ADS is the reference. But Applac in conjunction with Cadence , especially for RFIC ciruit is really GREAT !!
If your circuit's complexity incresaes, the accuracy and also "time-to-calculate" of simulators increases more rapidly than it.

But Applac has some advantages and I loved it.

I have tried it within Cadence 5.033 and the results were incredible with measurements..

 

[MMIC_man]

Re: ADS-MWO-Eagleware

Here are my impressions:

Eagfleware- cheap and decent linear simulation below 3 GHz. Inadequate for HB and EM. Great tech support. Great for filter synthesis, but not above c band.
ADS- Expensive and clumsy UI but very commonly used. Good EM simulator, inaccurate passive models for mm wave design. Bad tech support
MWO- Midrange cost, better GUI HB and linear models than agilent. Not as a good at EM vs ADS. Great Tech support.
APLAC fastest HB simulator for RFIC. Difficult GUI. No layout and limited EM.
Xpedion very fast HB and envelope simulator. Works in Cadence environment. Limited customer base, but good technology.
Sonnet - best closed boundary gridded 3D planar EM simultor. Good for MMIC. Great tech support!!
Zeland - best open boundary, non gridded 3D MOM EM simulator. Good for PCB, IC and antennas.