Help this site to grow by sending a friend an
invitation to visit this site.
CFD News by Email
Did you know that you can get today's CFD Review headlines mailed to your inbox?
Just log in and select Email Headlines Each Night on your User Preferences page.
Making CFD More Usable for the Masses
Posted Thu June 05, 2008 @04:08PM
pockets writes I'm currently using CosmosFloworks, with some aggravation. Have reviewed and demo'ed CFX, and have found it to be at the other extreme - a much more "Cadillac" model of CFD software (lots of variables may be set), however it's not nearly as User-friendly as Ansys Workbench or Solidworks (or the aforementioned FWx).
I'm aware that there are many CFD-code products in the marketplace; not looking for a shot-gun approach to the market, just some User-based comments (+ or -; it's worth it to know what not to demo) on CFD product.
Since Floworks (one extreme) seems to be fairly bug-ridden and annoying with its alert messages, and CFX seems to be more for the full-time Analyst, can anyone suggest other CFD packages that might fall in between these two products for a) ease of use, AND b) code stability and capability?
It would be worthwhile to know if many are using these products anyway and their monthly/annual usage of the tool(s)."
I disagree with your comments on Floworks being "buggy". I run geometrically intensive applications regularly without issue and the accuracy of the code for most of the physics it supports tends to be very good in my experience. Is it perfect, no. No code is. But it provides a very low effort hours to answer and for the most part the answers are very acceptable, solutions times are quite good, supported physics pretty decent and the price is very attractive. Some people don't understand how the code works and do have trouble as it is based on a very different paradigm/philosophy than most other codes.
If you need some help you can always try the CFD Online forum.
My experience is that CFD for the masses is probably not right for YOU. Codes that have been specially developed for a particular type of application tend to be be very productive for that type of application. So if you work in a relatively narrow field of fluid dynamics, it's worth searching out the codes that were designed to deal with that. General purpose codes by definition involve compromises, and tweaking to work for a particular application. The same thing applies perhaps even more strongly to using a meshing program that fits your type of flow and geometry.
So my opinion is that CFD is more usable for the masses, when the masses don't insist on a "one size fits all" product.