CFX - an appreciation for rotating machinery

JuPa · December 5, 2020, 13:10

This isn't a user issue post. It's an appreciation post stating how fantastic CFX is at handling and modelling rotating machinery compared to Fluent..

Fluent is truly awful at rotating machinery. E.g. It's very difficult in Fluent to set up non-overlap conditions (for interfaces).

Not much more to this thread than that.

ghorrocks · December 6, 2020, 02:56

IMHO, CFX's strengths are rotating machinery and complex multiphase flows. Just about everywhere else Fluent is in the lead. Also, CFX is much more user-friendly with complex features available through a reasonably simple interface, whereas Fluent's interface is a little impenetrable. That is my opinion, anyway.

JuPa · December 6, 2020, 10:52

I completely agree. I understand Fluent has a larger user base - but its interface is truly shocking.

The way Fluent deals with interfaces (mesh interfaces) is awful. I can't believe how bad it is.

Gert-Jan · December 6, 2020, 16:26

I try to avoid Fluent as much as possible. Only if a customer demands, or I really can't solve my engineering solutions using CFX, I'll switch to Fluent.

December 5, 2020, 13:10	CFX - an appreciation for rotating machinery	#1
JuPa Senior Member Mr CFD Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Britain Posts: 361 Rep Power: 14	This isn't a user issue post. It's an appreciation post stating how fantastic CFX is at handling and modelling rotating machinery compared to Fluent.. Fluent is truly awful at rotating machinery. E.g. It's very difficult in Fluent to set up non-overlap conditions (for interfaces). Not much more to this thread than that. karachun likes this.

December 6, 2020, 02:56		#2
ghorrocks Super Moderator Glenn Horrocks Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,703 Rep Power: 143	IMHO, CFX's strengths are rotating machinery and complex multiphase flows. Just about everywhere else Fluent is in the lead. Also, CFX is much more user-friendly with complex features available through a reasonably simple interface, whereas Fluent's interface is a little impenetrable. That is my opinion, anyway. JuPa likes this. __________________ Note: I do not answer CFD questions by PM. CFD questions should be posted on the forum. Last edited by ghorrocks; December 6, 2020 at 05:50.

December 6, 2020, 16:26		#4
Gert-Jan Senior Member Gert-Jan Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Europe Posts: 1,827 Rep Power: 27	I try to avoid Fluent as much as possible. Only if a customer demands, or I really can't solve my engineering solutions using CFX, I'll switch to Fluent. JuPa and aero_head like this.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CFX Treatment of Laminar and Turbulent Flows	Jade M	CFX	18	September 15, 2022 07:08
CFX pressure in Simulations problem	nasdak	CFX	1	April 14, 2010 13:22
Different flow pattern between OpenFOAM and CFX	AirS	OpenFOAM	0	January 12, 2010 07:08
CFX 10's solutions differ from CFX 5.7's	Atit Koonsrisuk	CFX	4	July 26, 2006 11:59
FSI using CFX and ANSYS	Bi Chang	CFX	2	May 10, 2005 04:47

December 6, 2020, 10:52		#3
JuPa Senior Member Mr CFD Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Britain Posts: 361 Rep Power: 14	I completely agree. I understand Fluent has a larger user base - but its interface is truly shocking. The way Fluent deals with interfaces (mesh interfaces) is awful. I can't believe how bad it is.