Re: CFD Code Choice and General Advice
 

It was a while ago that I last used it so it could well have changed. As far as I can remember you couldn't build the mesh as a separate step, you had to build the mesh and run all in one.

Re: CFD Code Choice and General Advice
 

Ben, you can see the node points under the mesh set up tab or you can see the full mesh by running the simulation for 0 iterations. Either way it's easy to see what the mesh is doing. Ron BTW I am using V9

Re: CFD Code Choice and General Advice
 

So you still have to set everything up before you can view the mesh? As I say I am not using it any more, I am a big fan of STAR-CCM+ and am not looking to go back to CFDesign, I was just making conversation, so to speak!

Re: CFD Code Choice and General Advice
 

I could not help notice the conversation about the diffenet CFd systems. I have used Cfdesign to simulate the cooling of the electronics in our products and found it to be very effective and accurate. We had a trial of Star last year and found it was not geared up for this kind of application at all (no circuit board definitions or representations for PBGAs, etc).

We also found that Cfdsign worked really well with our CAD models which meant we were running analyses and comparing in real time to our tests. There are a lot of automatic features aimed at the beginner, which can be 'disabled' if I wanted to get more involved. My experience is only electronics so I can't comment on automotive though.

Stu.

Re: CFD Code Choice and General Advice
 

Stu - I agree with your comments totally cf design might not be the tool of choice for formula 1 teams but I really love the ease of use when applying it to Electronics. Why make it difficult? I like things that make my life easier not harder. Why would anyone want to use a tool that doesn't have the fuctionality relevant to the application? Beats me......

Re: CFD Code Choice and General Advice
 

For information I have gone with STAR-CCM+. Even though the application is electronics cooling it is at system level rather than board level.

I appreciate the comments that have been left.

The demonstration that I had of CFdesign did allow the emsh to be built and inspected before running the analysis and it had a particularly interesting mesh diagnostic tool. I also felt that CFdesign would allow the fastest turnaround times from idea to analysis results.

However, STAR-CCM+ was chosen for several reasons - it has a higher level of functionality, more options for tailoring the mesh etc. Also CD-Adapco are based vey close so will be able to offer a fast response to technical questions.

I intend to put STAR-CCM+ to the test against physical data to determine its capabilities.

I would like to add that all three vendors offered a great deal of support in demonstrating their products and were all very easy to work with.

Re: CFD Code Choice and General Advice
 

I agree - the ease of use of CFdesign was what attracted it to me the most.

With regard to functionality, even though CFdesign is more tailored towards electronics cooling, my application is quite unique and i am not interested in board level analysis - if this was the case I would have gone with CFdesign.