Hi,

What are the main differences between Star Cd and Star CCM+ ?

Can you be a bit more specific? What are you interested in?

Is the solver core the same ? Physical model ? Meshing capabilities ?

From the cdadapco web site, it seem´s to me that CCM+ had the same functionalities as starcd but within a single interface. Am I wrong ?

Thanks in advance

No, No and No

The solver is completely different (and completely new), there are slightly less physical models in STAR-CCM+ although they are catching up rapidly, the meshing is far better in CCM+ and indeed is now being back ported to star-CD.

The interface is entirely new too and really slick.

Kindly start with http://www.cd-adapco.com/products/ST...lus/index.html

If you are new to CD-adapco products then getting your head around the differences will not be easy. The truth is hidden behind a smoke screen of marketing. adapco has said that its marketing tells you get plus what is coming. Difficult to separate the two at times.

Star-CD has considerably more physics that STAR-CCM+, however STAR-CCM+ can handle about 60% of all the work done by STAR-CD. You will find the differences in the physics at the top end. Star-CD has more combustion models, more multi-phase models, for example. STAR-CCM+ cannot handle moving mesh or coal combustion for example, whereas Star-CD can.

STAR-CCM+ is actually easier to use than Fluent. Star-CD comes with prostar. Only OpenFOAM is harder to get to grips with than prostar.

Your current choice of code depends on what you want to model because some models are only available in Star-CD. However, you can run STAR-CCM+ with a Star-CD license. This makes migration easier.

The point when both codes are expected to have the same functionality is the year 2009 according to the last adapco conference in London. So 2010 it is then - 70% of all software is delivered late to the market.

Need more information, then call adapco.

Regards

There are also things that STAR-CCM+ does better - for example with its coupled solver it's a better solution for high mach number flows.

The question to ask is which product is the best solution for my case? Pretty much nobody uses 100% of the functionality of general purpose CFD codes, so whether STAR-CCM+ = STAR-CD (in functionality) in 2008 or 2010 is of little importance if, for example, you want to solve the flow around aeroplanes, in which case STAR-CCM+ already does everything you need.

On the subject of airfoils. I have used STAR-CCM+ for marine propellers with a sharp trailing edge and the boundary layer fails to wrap around the trailing edge properly.

The other items in your response are correct. Very few users were able to get STAR-CD to converge to a meaningful result above mach 3.

I have a suspicion that you are David Vaughn at adapco. In which case you promised to send me a specific aerospace tutorial at the London user conference and failed to do so.

Regards

No, I'm not. Sorry.

Pity, it was agood discussion at the time about fitting a high quality surface mesh on to a propeller so that a very high quality volume mesh is created.

The failure of the mesher to respect very sharp trailing edges resulted in the BL mesh being killed off at the trailing edge.

Regards