Publication quality figures from Star-ccm+ analyses?
 

Hi all,

I was wondering if any of you had some tips about how to produce good quality figures and images from Star-ccm+? At the moment I'm having some trouble outputting images of a 2D simulation. The lines for the outline of the shape are jaggedy/pixelly, and don't really look good enough. Changing the line width, image format and resolution don't seem to help matters; if anything, the lower resolution images actually look better. Any ideas?
I'm also getting quite a lot of aliasing in my images when I have streamlines with velocity contours. An example of this is seen in the image attached. I really need sharper, smoother, smarter images than this because they're for my thesis. Do I need to use Paraview or tecPlot instead?
I'd really like to hear your views on this and any suggested settings would be very helpful!

Thanks!
Nick

I used .png format and VERY high resolutions (in the range of 3000 pixels) for the figures in my master thesis and was quite happy with the image quality.
I had to increase the linewidth so it remained visible when scaling down the figure to fit the page format.

Thanks Flotus, I'm glad to hear that it is possible!
I've found that when outputting streamline figures using hi-res png, the colour appears more washed out for some reason. Did you experience this? Is this what made you play about with the line width?
Did you just specify the resolution or did you play about with the magnification option too?
Could you give me an idea of how large your files were that you used if possible?

Thanks a lot,
Nick

It has been over a year now since I produced the figures and used CCM+ the last time. So unfortunately, I cant remember all the details any more.

Try the following: if you increase the resolution of the .png output to lets say 4 times the original resolution, make sure that the line width of the streamlines, outlines etc. is also 4 times the original line width. I cant remember if I did this with the magnification or the line width option, but I am sure you will figure it out by trial&error.
Additionally, I think I kept the aspect ratio of the output file exactly the same, which means both x- and y-resolution have to be multiplied by exactly the same factor.