Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

Hello,

I am not happy about the fluent GUI that opens all those little windows everywhere.

Since Fluent is merging with CFX I would like to propose that fluent uses a CFX type GUI filling the whole screen keeping the fluent solver.

If you agree that users should decide what the new code will have/have not and want to profit from this evolution, you could send a request to fluent guys.

Cloigh

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

your a bit hopefull arent you, if ansys keep a hold of CFX (and its a big if) what do you thing they will do, strip down the code that cost them $600 million and integrate it into a code that cost them $20 million and has far far less users? Doubt it will happen some how

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

They'll probably just bin fluent, its not that good after all, only joking! Ditching Gambit however would make sense, its useless compared to ICEM.

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

gambit is the way forward, would not change it for anything! so much better when you know what youare doing

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

For pure hex meshing, ICEM wins every time! Both meshers crash quite a bit when you're a new user, but ICEM is best in the long run.

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

i completely agree with you, i have been working with gambit for long time, and i never had any problems with it. infact i prefer it and i try to do things with it as much as possible (i do have access to IDEAS , gridgen, hypermesh also). With gambit if you do not know how to work it can trouble you very much, and so the people are irked with it. I personally am very happy with it.

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

i think that is true about most packages to be honest, I'm a STAR-CD user and people whinge about the usability of pro-STAR but if you get to know it, it is a hugely powerfull tool it just takes more time and effort to learn, I have been using STAR-CCM+ a lot too and its great to use and dead easy to learn but I do find myself frustrated sometimes having to go through a GUI when in pro-STAR i could type a couple of commands and get something done that in other packages requires a series of clicks.

Same with gambit/fluent/cfx if you are a skilled user I am sure all of them are equally powerfull, its just how you use them, after all a bad workman blames his tools!

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

great post, well put

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

Don't you also find that as a result of skills developed, people are therefore unwilling to try new or different products. To truely compare tools (be it gridding, solving, post proc.) you really need to become proficient in its use, before you can compare one against another.

People can become stuck in their ways, and not want to change or properly try new products. Whats the answer ? re-inventing / learning the wheel each time ?

Just a thought.

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

Don't you also find that as a result of skills developed, people are therefore unwilling to try new or different products.

Well we all want to try new things and always wish that something should improve. But our priorities differ. In my personal opinion GUI not so important when it comes to change compared to other areas of CFD that needs change and innovation. If we need change first we need in terms of solution accuracy and stablity. I do not mind any GUI if this is there. Of course prefernces change from person to person, someone might want Pamela Anderson in background of FLUENT GUI, but we want good results.

Re: Important proposed change for Fluent/CFX GUI
 

GUI is useful for begineer. However, when I get used to CFX, I'll prefer running everything on the command line so that I can automate the process without clicking many times.

Regarding the meshing tool, you just have to know its limitation. One will be fool enough to think that a particular meshing tool will be perfect for all types of geometries. Meshing depends very much on user-experience. I found ICEM very difficult to use at one stage but now I use it very often than tools like gridgen etc.