I've been asked to recommend everyone who posts a question to the CFX forum to clearly specify which code the question is related to - CFX-4, CFX-5, CFX-Tascflow or CFX-Build, ... This would avoid a lot of confusion - the AEA codes are quite different and if you don't specify which code you are using it can easily lead to missunderstandings.

(1). I agree with you, but it is not just for CFX. (2). It is important to know that CFX .ne. CFX-4 .ne. CFX-5 .ne. CFX-TASCflow .ne. .... (3). The same is true for Fluent. Fluent .ne. Fluent.4 .ne. Fluent/UNS .ne. Fluent/tgrid .ne. Fluent/Rampant .ne. Fluent-5 ....(4). Sometimes, the version number is very important. This was the case when I was using ICEM/Hexa sometimes ago. Different versions can provide different solution , but it also creates unexpected problem. At one time, we were forced to use only a particular version only to avoid further confusion. (5). Anyway, commercial cfd codes are becoming like the Japanese Shushi. It is just hard to name it correctly.

Maybe I can clear this up a tiny bit:

- CFX-4 uses a a pressure based segregated solver only on block structured grids.

- CFX-TASCflow uses a pressure based coupled implicit solver (mass and momentum) only on block structured grids.

- CFX-5 also uses a pressure based coupled implicit solver, but can handle both unstructured and structured grids, and is more scalable for parallel processing than either CFX-4 or CFX-TASCflow.

The physical models available in each package are where they really begin to distinguish themselves. CFX-4 has an extremely large base of models for simulating multiphase flows. TASCflow is extremely good for simulating turbomachinery, especially with it's dissimilar grid attachment features. CFX-5 combines the two in a few areas along with the unstructured gridding.

Dan.

(1). So, which one is called California ShuSi(a joke).