CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

Bitching about fluent

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   January 10, 2002, 12:34
Default Bitching about fluent
  #1
Joel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I know that this may start a bit of a riot but here we go anyway: From looking around this forum for a fair few months now i have discovered one thing, no one likes fluent (fluent employees aside). Could someone in one distinct answer tell me why no one likes it. The pre-processor seems reasonably well liked (see discussion a few lines down) so what is wrong with the solver and the post processor? I am using Star at the mo and am getting on with it well but would like to know where star falls down and where other codes are better (CFX, Phoenics etc etc) and if star is considered more highly than fluent. I know this is dangerous but hey, should be interesting! P.S. Please no fluent/star/cfx/phoenics employees blowing their own trumpets please, i would like impartial views from users not sales men.
  Reply With Quote

Old   January 10, 2002, 22:13
Default Re: Bitching about fluent
  #2
cfd user
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't think it's really ever a question of which code is better or worse. Currently, each code offers something different or slightly better than the other. Examples include chemistry and turbulence models, mesh generators, solver discretization, speed, etc. It also is somewhat political for the better Fluent users will not change to Star and vice-versa.

There are better ways in determining what code works best for your application. For example, the calculation of the moving piston/valve problem for an engine is easy to implement in Star but the chemistry is perhaps better in Fluent. Turbomachinery folks like CFX. You need to learn the codes and make the decision your self based on your needs and constraints.

The same situation holds true for mesh generators. Some use Pro-am, some use the Fluent or CFX generators. Others decide that, in addition to a CFD package, they need to use ICEM.

My take on this rather political debate is that an engineer should go to his trusty tool box and pick which tool works best for a given problem. In an ideal world, cost would not be the issue. Thus, the engineer must decide which code, in general, works best for a given set of problems that he will encounter while at his job.

I will say that I am a life long Star-CD user but realize the benefits of Fluent from experience. I have no experience with CFX. I have also reviewed papers to deal with the accuracy issue and can not come to a conclusion. With three main players out there - do I really have to? Each will get better from the competition.
  Reply With Quote

Reply

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
Stopping a Fluent batch job AND saving the data! Possible? Volker Pawlik FLUENT 7 May 22, 2014 22:30
Compared MRFSimpleFoam and Fluent in a centrifugal pump! renyun0511 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 8 July 6, 2010 06:24
Fluent 12.0 is worst then Fluent 6.2 herntan FLUENT 5 December 14, 2009 03:57
Problems in lauching FLUENT Lourival FLUENT 3 January 16, 2008 17:48
Advanced Turbulence Modeling in Fluent, Realizable k-epsilon Model Jonas Larsson FLUENT 5 March 13, 2000 04:27


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:49.