CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > FLUENT

Question about Fluent

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   August 6, 2001, 13:29
Default Question about Fluent
Posts: n/a
Why is Fluent the world's largest (no. of users) CFD code when it is clearly worse than both CFX and Star? The physices in Fluent are poor and if its anything complex the convergence is terrible.

True, gambit is easy to use, but not for complex files and CAD import is v bad and the adaption is a pain in the arse. Whats the point in getting a mesh if its so bad the answers are wrong.

I assume that it is just good marketing. Anyone have any ideas?
  Reply With Quote

Old   August 6, 2001, 14:23
Default Re: Question about Fluent
Posts: n/a
It is important to remember that computer programs are only as stupid as the person that is operating them. Keep that in mind the next time you are pondering such deep, personal questions.

  Reply With Quote

Old   August 6, 2001, 14:50
Default Re: Question about Fluent
Scott Whitney
Posts: n/a
I've used both CFX and Fluent. To me, Fluent was easier to use. It was certainly cheaper to license (free to universities). And I got my converged results in half the time when using Fluent (maybe I was just not good at CFX).

Post processing was much, much easier on CFX.

So I guess the score is 3 points to 1 point. I no longer use CFX.
  Reply With Quote

Old   August 6, 2001, 15:57
Default Re: Question about Fluent
Posts: n/a
Fluent is not a better code with any stretch of imagination. It is a user friendly code and that seems to be 99% of the selling job. Once you get the code, and you have a slightly more difficult problem than a channel flow, then you would start to encounter problems. At that point, they start pushing consulting services on you. For them it is a win/win situation. They have wonderful marketting and agressive (and sometimes complacent) sales force, which the other guys don't have. They are much bigger now and can afford being arrogant (which they are). It is true that Gambit is easy to use, but it is also very deficient if you want to do complicated meshes. So I agree with you the mesh is usually bad and the answer is most of the time wrong, specially if you do a mesh refinement study, you will notice that convergence is really in the eye of the beholder. The physical models are plenty but lousy. If you have for example a low Re number turbulent flow, just forget it. The models are extremely poor. The code is so diffusive that will give you a fully convereged laminar solution where the flow is clearly turbulent. They pretend that they do validation studies, but that is also a marketting gimmick.

The real problem is that their competition is not as agressive as they are and they also don't have their act together.

  Reply With Quote

Old   August 8, 2001, 09:32
Default Re: Question about Fluent
Posts: n/a
Its interesting to see the difference between the answers here and on the main form.

My experience is that if its multi-phase then forget it. Gambit is easy to use, but thats no use when the mesh doesn't produce any answers.

Its true about the mesh adaption, it is very hard to use and takes a long time. I thought maybe the mesh was the problem but I couldn't even get it to work with pipe flow with my problem.

Maybe fluent want to comment on this. We hear all about their marketing machine, but they haven't commented.

Or perhaps they think its better not to say anything on this kind of debate?

  Reply With Quote

Old   August 8, 2001, 12:46
Default Re: Question about Fluent
John C. Chien
Posts: n/a
(1). About the mesh adaption, based on my experience, it works. I had studied this part of option extensively several years ago. That is, you can refine the mesh at the boundary, or you can specify a region. (there are also other options which are not frequently used) (2). From business point of view, I don't think any CFD company is interested in solving your problem at all. Since you are using their codes already,they want you to continue using the code in the future, and also have the opportunity to work on your problem. (3). So, "my theory" is, as long as your problem remains un-solved, everybody will have a chance to work on it. When it is completed, the opportunity is gone. (it will arrive sooner or later, they are not interested in rushing to the end) (4). To get the solution you want, you will have to say it clearly in the contract. But this is not easy task for CFD. (4). So, unless the investment will clearly bring more business to the vendors, there is no incentive for them to spend their research money ahead of the time.
  Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question about modeling an elastic wall in Fluent Mosheraa FLUENT 2 June 24, 2011 18:47
Fluent jobs through pbs ibnkureshi FLUENT 5 June 9, 2011 13:43
Question: BC openFOAM vs. FLUENT oehmu OpenFOAM 2 December 14, 2010 17:14
a question about the liquidus temperature in fluent hunter FLUENT 0 April 13, 2009 21:55
General question regarding Fluent 6.3s mesh motion AndyRoth FLUENT 0 December 8, 2006 13:01

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:02.