|
CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
What do you guys think about the recent announcement that Ansys will buy CFX from AEA?
From my perspective it must be good - Ansys is a profitable company and integration between Ansys, CFX and perhaps ICEM CFD's tools would really make it more easy to do coupled simulations etc. I'm not a great fan of Ansys' user interface though. Perhaps this new ANSYS/ICEM-CFD/CFX troijka will be able to give Fluent a match for the top position in the CFD sector? Ansys has a very strong position in many important CFD markets, for example, in aerospace. This will surely be good for CFX in the long term. Or what do you think? |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I agree. ANSYS is producing many new products but still remaining focused on quality analysis tools. Becoming a top player in the CFD market is a natural choice. The combination of ICEM and CFX will make for tough competition.
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I also agree, the ICEM capability will enhance CFX. Other markets should open up for the code, especially if the junction is as good as the CFX / Tascflow merger. It would be good to see Fluent put under some more pressure. CFX5 has progressed very quickly and very positivly over the last few years (it needed to to keep up!). I think the code is already showing great prospects as it develops into a more mature state.
My only worry is that development does not progress as it has done up until now and that the excellent support that is offered by the staff at CFX is reduced. You only have to speak to people who use multiple codes and they will all tell you (from what I have found) that CFX's support is the best. Lets hope it remains that way !! Bob |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I am interested in hearing more about CFX's support. In my opinion, having a superior code is somewhat expected but superior support is usually harder to come by. In your opinion, what does CFX do specifically that makes their support better than others?
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
The answer to that question could be worth a lot of money :)))
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Ansys is focused on one thing - making money (not that that is so bad). They have not developed much of anything new themselves since John Swanson left-they buy it all. I don't think they will sink the type of development money into CFX that it needs to stay up with Fluent or STAR-CD. My guess is that they will try hardest to sell this to where they are making the most money with Ansys - low end Windows based users. I'm sure that they will do some interesting things to try to integrate with DesignSpace but I would be surprised if they advance the the state of the art of CFD. Its certainly not what they do on the FEA side.
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I see your point, but I meant it more in a general sense. What does good support entail? What are customer's expectations in regards to contacting a vendor for support? Some feel as though support should cover everything from licensing questions, to debugging models to suggesting approaches to a problem. Where is the dividing line between what is considered support and what should be considered consulting?
cheers, derrek |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Hi Derrek, I'd say CFX do all of what you suggested. There is an element of When is support consultancy. However they are never shy of offering good advice on an approach to a problem, and have always been very quick to help with a tricky problem. The support people do expect that you have tried to solve the problem yourself using their advice. However if that does not solve the problem, then they always (in my case) will look at the model for you. I do know what you mean though, and this very good setup that CFX have and provide should not be abused. I personally always try hard to solve a problem first, then ask CFX for their advice, then only when that is drawing a blank do I send the model. Even then I always ask if there are things that I can be trying in parallel to what they may be doing. Aas a result I feel I have a very good relationship with the support personel who are very willing and able to help.
As for the Ansys selling statement made by steve, may be you're right ? I don't know ? however does Fluent not sell its code very agressively ? |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Company policy for quality support is intrinsic to CFX. Support is very central to their main concerns. Support procedure are fairly comprehensive and undergo regular customer and internal reviews I understand from friends at CFX. Consultancy is also a big business, and needs good support and expert staff.
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
There is nothing wrong at with aggressively selling a code. That is how you stay in business. But my point was that Ansys's recent history says they don't invest heavily in state-of-the-art numerics. The recent additions to Ansys have to do mostly with somewhat peripheral items. They are not investing much in faster solvers or distributed computing or non-linear stress analysis. They are doing things mostly to make Ansys more attractive to low end users. I don't know what their plans are, but I would be surprised if they handle CFX any differently. I don't think you can be that complacent with CFD in the long run. Its a much younger and less mature field than FEA. Look what they did with Flotran all these years. Nothing.
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Steve, I used Flotran back in 1995, is it still as bad ?? No I agree with you 100%, the CFD market is very cut throat. CFX have almost completed a successful (in my mind) come back from a position wher they were definitely lagging behind the competition. Lets hope for all our sakes that what you suggest does not come true !
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Steve:
I totally disagree with your perception of ANSYS. They are continuously investing back into R&D, improving element technology and continuously improving the solvers. Look at Design Space, for example, the initial motivation was to expose designers to FEA technology. They then took that one step further and built this tool inside their own revolutionary application toolkit, Workbench. Workbench is literally changing the way people view analysis tools. Look at all of the new products coming out of ANSYS. DesignXplorer, AGP, FEMXplorer. I don't know of any other company that is offering these tpyes of tools. Yes, they do acquire companies to expand their capabilities, but I consider that a natural progression. THey are not just acquiring companies to expand their sales potential, like MSC. They are not late to the game offering designer level tools, like Abaqus. I am interested in hearing your thoughts. Derrel |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Let's face it, Flotran has always taken somewhat of a backseat at ANSYS. It was always considered as a complement to ANSYS, not necessarily a stand alone CFD tool. It is used by companies that do some CFD work and have ANSYS for their structural/thermal/emag etc needs. Great tool for the price. But never intended to be a competitor to the big three, and should never be compared to them. I think ANSYS' acquiring of cfx shows ANSYS committment to entering the CFD market with full force and taken on Fluent and CD.
derrek |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Didn't Ansys also buy the CFD code from Centric several years ago? What ever happened to that?
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Derrek, I don't mean to say that Ansys does no development - but all the programs you list are not particularly things that advance the state of the art of FEA. Its true that they may have brought linear elastic analysis down to the designer, and even done that well, but people have been doing linear elastic analysis for 30 years. I have been an Ansys user for more than 20 years and I have not seen all that much change in the last couple of years for what I do - and I don't do design. All I am saying is that they are focusing their efforts on lower end users and apparently making a lot of money doing it. They have a business model that works well for them, but I don't think it will play the same way with CFX. Perhaps they won't take the same track with CFD. I am just taking my best guess.
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Integrating CFD with FEA hardly sounds like a move geared to low-end users. Robin
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Steve:
I apprecitate what you are saying but just don't agree. With the exception of Desing Space, where is the focus on lower end users? A new interface, along with a toolkit to customize the interface and give you the ability to build your own isn't geared towards to the lower ended user by any means. The expansion series technology and other optimization tools are definitely not lower ended? But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. derrek |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Derrek, Actually, I disagree. The toolkit is just meant to make it easier for companies to integrate their own processes into Ansys or the reverse, whichever way you like. I am not against this at all, as it makes sense for many places. The focus seems to me to be on integrating what already exists more into a client's design process than pushing the envelope on FEA. Certainly a low-end user is not going to use the toolkit - but what will happen is the one good programmer or analyst at a company will use the toolkit to extend his knowledge to lower end users. However, its just not the same as doing cutting edge work on plasticity or coming out with highly parallelized solvers. Maybe FEA is so mature that you don't have to do this kind of thing anymore? I don't know and I certainly have no idea what Ansys' plans for CFX are either - I'm just guessing. Steve
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Steve,
I suggest you read the writing on the wall. ANSYS now owns ICEM-CFD and CFX. What do you really think will happen? The top 2 guys at ICEM have left the company and all of ICEMs consulting group use Star/Fluent at the moment. ICEM has made a habit about not aligning themselves with a flow solver in the past. Now they are aligned whether they like it or not. This really smells like some coming, very positive, change to me. I think that over the next few years you will see ever tighter integration with CFX and ICEM products which will eventually turn them into the leading CFD package on the market. Between the CFX-5 mesher, tetra and hexa they have some of the best meshing technolgy, they have the best flow solver, and the CFX-5 post processor is nothing to turn a nose up to. I don't know much about the FEA technology in ANSYS but certainly the CFD technology in CFX-5 is the most state of the art on the market today. If ANSYS wants to continue the mometum that CFX-5 is showing then certainly they will have to maintain the investment levels that were maintained by AEA in the past few years. So, from that standpoint I am not worried at all about what ANSYS will do with CFX and ICEM, I'm quite optimistic. Neale |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Neale,
I think you are reading the wrong wall. First of all, ICEM supports something like 100 formats and CFX users are only one (and I'm sure a small minority) of all their users. Do you think Ansys is going to kiss off the revenues from more than 50% (probably 80%) of ICEM users just to focus ICEM on CFX? I don't. Certainly not any time soon since those revenues are paying for what it cost to buy ICEM. Next, do you think that ANSYS is going to deliver CFX and ICEM together at the same discounted prices that CFX alone has been selling at for the last two years? I hope you are sitting down when you get your first renewal bill. ANSYS does not discount. I have no experience to know if CFX is a good solver or bad. I have a little bit with ICEM and they are OK. But I have been an ANSYS customer for a long time and I do know how that company operates. They are led by business people, not engineers, and they are driven to make money. If selling to the high end makes it they will, but if selling to the low makes more they will do that. The thing is, at least in FEA, there are many more low-end than high-end customers around. Maybe they will approach CFD the same way or maybe not. Perhaps this discussion should continue after they have had CFX for a year. Then none of us will have to play guessing games. Steve |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Add another twist to this story ... Icepak is a joint venture of ICEM and Fluent.
CFX is too far behind Fluent and StarCD in terms of customers or industry focus to recover as the leading CFD code however targeting the design space with Ansys might be a good idea. New management will certainly also be good for CFX. |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
As you clearly stated that you have no experience with CFX, one would wonder your sudden very negative "concern" for how CFX will be run by Ansys. Does anyone else smell a rat?
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Sniff, sniff.
Yes, I do |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Steve mentioned that Fluent was by far the market leader in CFD sales, with Star being second and CFX third. How big is the gap between the different codes in terms of sales ? Bob
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I thought the division was roughly 50% Fluent 25% Star 25% CFX
Star and cfx being as big nowadays. But these are very rough estimates. |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I would say, that Fluent and Star are almost on the same level (my estimate: 35% Fluent 30%Star, 15% CFX, 20% others)
Star dominates the very important automobile sector. Here CFX does not have the necessary know-how, even if their solver is good. |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
This data is available at the Aavid and Ansys websites.... CFX had 19 M in sales (had operating loss this year). Fluent should be at least 70 M this year.
Steve2 (not Steve) |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Steve,
Yes, ICEM does support many formats, I think I also pointed out the same thing when I said they have been careful not to align themselves in the past. But now, you never know what might happen. I did not imply that ICEM will be solely focused on CFX. ICEM will continue to sell their products as they have been to keep that revenue (as you point out). One thing I don't have to guess about is that ANSYS has no choice but to deliver some sort of joing CFX/ICEM product. This is because, being the cutthroat bussiness people they are, they will really want to get rid of the royalty stream that CFX is paying to MSC for using Patran in CFX-Build. ANSYS paying MSC (one of their competitors) money... I'm sure they are not happy with that arrangment. So, I think what you will see is that ICEM will remain largely unchanged, but some sort of CFX product enhanced by geometry/meshing technology already available at ICEM will appear in the future. Neale |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Neale,
Your last message makes sense. My point before (perhaps too strongly) was that ICEM could not afford to align so closely with CFX that they ignore the majority of their users in the process and we agree. Its an interesting balancing act for Ansys all around it seems. Steve |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
When looking at market share, how do you break down the sizes. Do you look at sales figures or profits ? The reason I ask is that both Star and Fluent have very large consultancy groups (as I understand it). If there figures were included in the profits then would that not bias the market shares ? Bob
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
This is both tedious and wrong. Star is almost non-existent in CP and strong only (really) in auto.
The market share was last year approx 40% Fluent 17% Star 16% CFX 27% others. I would think its Star who are in the worst position w.r.t. Ansys buying CFX. |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I believe consulting sales is much smaller than software sales for CFX and Fluent. I am sure the margins are much lower. I have heard that Fluent has had very good profitability and growth (15-20%) over the last several years. According to the AEA website CFX had an operating loss this year.
Sometime back we looked at CFX but felt they lacked industry expertise and where somewhat unstable as a company. Also CFX 5 was not well tested and lacked models found in Fluent. |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Is the rat-smell back?
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Hi Steve2,
I'm sorry, but I have read the ANSYS press release (http://www.ansys.com/corporate/news_...s/feb04_03.htm) and do not see where it states an operating loss this year, only revenues of $19 million for last year. Secondly, CFX has a lot of experience in the CFD industry. CFX-4 and CFX-TASCflow, the legacy products of AEA and the former ASC, have long stood there ground in their respective fields and combined have a lot of capability. CFX-5 may not have been sufficient for you a few years ago, but has seen intensive development in the last few years, combining the technology originally developed in these older codes. The upcoming CFX-5.6 release will completely replace CFX-4 and CFX-TASCflow for nearly all applications. I can appreciate your opinion of CFX-5, particularly if you last looked at it two years ago. But it may be worth having another look at it now, particularly considering what may be coming in the future as a part of ANSYS. The techology is there, and any experience CFX may lack in the automotive sector can be gained through their new association with ANSYS ICEM-CFD. Best regards, Robin |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Hello Robin,
as I know that you work for CFX some annotations regarding the the future of CFX in the automotive sector: The following points will be neccessary to gain market share: 1) The ability of grid-generation for complex geometries. CFX-Build canot do the job. Here ICEMCFD can perhaps help, as their mesher can better handle complex and bad CAD-data. But the ICEMCFD-programs have some severe problems regarding stability and the documentation is bad or non-existant. I have the feeling that star-cd with its unstructured/hybrid hex-mesher pro-am has the best meshing technology for complex geometries and CFX will have to fight hard to compete. 2) CFX must hire some experts for automotive CFD-applications. CFX has knowlege in turbomachinary and process engineering, but if a customer from the automotive sector has a question regarding CFD-simulation of an engine, he first has to explain to the CFX-support how an engine works. 3) CFX must offer interfaces to 1D-engine simulation software such as WAVE and GT-Power. Coupled with a 3D-CFD solver, these are the tools with which engines are designed. Without such a coupling no automotive company will decide to switch to CFX. 4) For in-cylinder calculations moving-mesh technology is essential. I hope that ANSYS as the new owner will take steps in the right direction in order to establish CFX in the automotive sector. Best regards, Larry |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the advice and will pass it along to the powers that be. Best regards, Robin |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I have copied the press release and link for you below but if you are an employee of CFX you should already know this. If AEA is wrong tell us how CFX did!
As for "CFD experience" we would expect that from any CFD company. We are more interested in the added value which comes from focusing CFD, related tools and staff on specific customer industries. Promises of CFX5.6 is not going to cut it. Besides Fluent and Star are improving at the same or better rate and have more years of testing behind it. http://www.aeat.com/corporate/news/2003/feb_04.htm 4 February 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sale of CFX AEA Technology agrees to sell its CFX software business for around £12.5 million AEA Technology (AEAT) today announces that it has reached agreement for the sale of its specialist software business CFX to Ansys Inc for around £12.5 million in cash. Completion is subject to certain conditions and is expected by the end of February. The proceeds will be used to reduce the Group's net borrowings. In the financial year ended 31 March 2002, CFX had sales of £13.0 million and made an operating loss of £1.9 million after exceptional items. Net assets as at 30 September 2002 were £2.5 million. The agreement to sell CFX is part of AEAT's disposal programme. CFX specialises in developing and supplying computational fluid dynamics software and associated services worldwide. It was part of AEAT's Engineering Software division, the biggest part of which - Hyprotech - was sold last year for £67.5 million. Ansys Inc develops and globally markets engineering simulation software and technologies for engineers and designers in many industries. For further information, please contact: Mark Herbert/Catherine Lees, Bell Pottinger 07770 381 608 / 07836 298 811 |
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
I myself used STAR-CD (in combination with pro-am) and am now using CFX (also CFX5.6 already). For tet meshes ICEM and pro-am were horrible compared to CFX-build. The hybrid meshes generated by pro-am were also very bad and needed a lot of repairing (VERY time consuming). Putting some extra time in generating a good iges file saves a lot of time fixing it in your CFD package. I can only say that I'm very content with CFX 5, and I'm pleased with the next version (5.6).
|
Re: CFX bought by Ansys - good or bad?!
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:36. |