Which RF simulator is Better ! ! !

[Aircraft Maniac]

rf simulator

Hi everyone,

I would like your opinion on which RF simulator is better from the 3 below:

@DS 2003
@WR MWO2003
CST microw@ve Studio 5

I would also like to know why which one is better and lastly which one is good for professional /beginer level.

Aircraft Maniac

 

[djalli]

rf software simulator

I am a beginer in last two but ADS is Ok for planar structures.

Other good RF simulators are Ansoft HFSS, Ansoft Designers.

----------------------------
Microwave Studio is popular

ADS is a full blown and mature package. So is HFSS and Ansoft Designer for a professional.

-----------------------
You can not be amatuer in RF. Amatuer you can say it for HAM radio, amatuer in microelectronics etc. RF comes with a level of complexity in designs.

 

[yingyang]

www.betterrf schematic

there is no better rf simulator. it all depends on your problem....

 

[mhamed]

I don't know why you don't choose Ansoft Hfss!
I found it very good and powerful in simulation especially in waveguides.

 

[flatulent]

It all depends on what you are simulating. Is it antennas, filters, amplifiers, complete modulated systems? I generally find that the simplest for your use is best. One of my friends who runs a business has all of his needs met with a ten year old version of Eagleware Genesys.

 

[Aircraft Maniac]

Thanks alot fellows....

Actually I am new to microwave stuff designing.....I am a IC design fella..fabrication side.... so I wanted to know which simulator is best for both professional and begineer level and why. i am interested in working in MMIC side....

Hope more people put in there responses....

Aircraft maniac

 

[marcomdd]

@WR MWO2003 is much easy (for a beginner) to use that @DS.

 

[hrkhari]

I believe that:

Si Based RFIC design:

ADS and SpectreRF would serve the purpose

GaAs Based MMIC design:

ADS and AWR is adequate.

Rgds

 

[Buddy]

Nice question.

I use analog simulators to do the rf simulations instead. However, they don't take account to the slew rate caused by opamps (if you deal with active filters). Use something like Pspice will do. The accuracy is actually very close! :wink:

 

[vagarwal]

Hi,

I feel ADS2003 is better equiped then AWR. However AWR is fast picking up and has some libraries that are not available with ADS. But then ADS has some features that make it worth. Anyway, just to quote a few differences...the tuner in MWO is faster then in ADS. In ADS em simulation is faster and the system also doesn't hang if the solution does not converge, unlike in AWR. Layout generation is equally good in both. ADS has a wider range of non-linear models and generic models then AWR.

Spectre RF is also a good solution as suggested above.

But finally, I would advocate ADS.

Regards.

 

[DJ]

I use AWR, ADS and also HFSS for MMIC design and complicated structures too. For MMIC actually you have to work with ADS or AWR. The main issue is the library for the componnent you have. The FAB you work with has to support and give you elements library. Look and see if they support ADS or AWR. If they support both then for beginner no question take the AWR. It is faster and very user friendly. When you look for complicated and more profesional tasks you almost must to work with ADS.
Sometimes you have to use HFSS(For Via modeling etc) nut normaly you don't have to use it.

D.J

 

[khouly]

i think @DS is very good in RF simulation , i always use it . it has a very large number of simulations "AC,TRAN , S, ...."
support many models for most devices
have amny synthizes tools "line calac , E syn "

it is a complete solution

thanks

 

[toonafishy]

MWO is much easier to use. However, @DSstill has a more in depth system simulator.

 

[Duncan_Widman]

danelad, can you give a specific example of when you had to switch to ADS from AWR? What kind of limitation you ran into?

Thanks,

Duncan

 

[mhadidy]

ADS Advanced Design System is very nice. I have a very good experience in it if you need further help. But it is somehow difficult to start

 

[multanova51]

Hi

Here we go again.........
Is just like the differences between flavours and coffee and tea....
I worked with different MWO - ADS -Designer - Genesys
They are not that different....... most smaller mfg's and labs have to think on the $ issue. So this I think one of the most key issues.


rgds

Mike

 

[DJ]

Duncan_Widman, for most of my MMIC design AWR do the Job as well as ADS. Sometimes we have active device model in AWR or ADS that force me to use the needed softwar. AWR as the other mentioned is easier and friendly user. I direct and teach students and teach them the AWR for schematic simulation fpor that reason. We like to use the momentum as the EM simulator also for MMIC design.
If you are looking for more complicated features ADS is like MATLAB. I'm sure you can find the way to force AWT also to do the Job.
We use AWR also for layout presentation. It has nice 3D. It is very nice to see multylayer LTCC structure using the AWR.

D.J

 

[randyding]

that really depend on what you do, ADS is good for most of RF simulation

 

[andrew_luo]

i think ADS is more comlete than the rest two, but the most important is profesional knowledge , simulate softwares are just an assistant.

 

[Duncan_Widman]

Duncan_Widman, for most of my MMIC design AWR do the Job as well as @DS. Sometimes we have active device model in AWR or @DS that force me to use the needed softwar. AWR as the other mentioned is easier and friendly user. I direct and teach students and teach them the AWR for schematic simulation fpor that reason. We like to use the momentum as the EM simulator also for MMIC design.
If you are looking for more complicated features @DS is like MATLAB. I'm sure you can find the way to force AWT also to do the Job.
We use AWR also for layout presentation. It has nice 3D. It is very nice to see multylayer LTCC structure using the AWR.

D.J

Hi danelad,

Thanks for your response. It sounds like you know the software pretty well. As you may have seen from my other posts, I work at AWR, and I just wanted to follow up if there were times when you thought you had to switch to ADS. I think it's pretty rare that someone would have to do this.

Unfortunately I think some people get the impression that because Microwave Office is easy to learn, that it can't also be used for complex problems, which is not true at all.

Duncan