Hello,

there is a lot of CFD software listed on CFD-ONLINE website, and I would like to know which one are complete package (such as Fluent). Thank you for your help. Fabien

Complete can mean different things. I think you'll get a better answer if you describe the application you are working with. No code is good at everyting.

The main competitors to Fluent are Star-CD from Computational Dynamics, CFX from AEA Technology and CFD-ACE from CFD Research Corporation.

(1). None is a complete package: because ENGINEERS are not included. (2). They are not competitors: They are just bunch of people who think that they can write some codes which are necessary to solve some problems. They are still trying. They would still be doing the same thing even if they were all merged into one big company. (3). Part of the CFD problem comes from the wishful thinking of making a PhD dissertation into a best selling book (or software). (4). CFD is still PhD level RESEARCH, and it will remain so for a long time (another century perhaps).

As already mentioned in this thread already, "complete" means different to different people. But typically when people ask about complete they refer to a package that can do pre-processing, solve relevant equations, and do post processing. I am replying in this context

CFD-ACE+ from CFD Research Corporation (CFDRC) is a complete package in the above context. It has tools for CAD, block-strucutured and unstructured mesh generation, solution of relevant equations, and graphical post-processing.

CFD-ACE+ also offers advanced features such as fluid/thermal/strucutural interaction, plasma transport and chemistry, advanced radiation modeling (Monte-Carlo ray tracing, electrochemistry, and more.

Want to learn more about CFD-ACE+? Visit our home on the web, http://www.cfdrc.com.

The business of business is to make money. This is the driving force behind commercial CFD. All these companies have shareholders to answer to. As these companies are already making considerable profit (well some of them anyway I doubt therefore you can consider their work 'research'. It is not as if a course of 'research' leads to a single ultimate 'deliverable'. Research is an ongoing activity as is its commercial realisation.

John, surely you're blinkered to think that in 100 years there will be no more CFD research, that we will know everything there is to know about CFD. There has never been an area of interest that humanity has claimed to know to the extent where it need not be researched any more. As you correctly point out the ENGINEER is at the center of all of this. I doubt very much that an ENGINEER in the year 2099 will have the same requirements of CFD than they do now.

(1). I don't think CFD itself is business oriented. It is just an vehicle. (2). It is possible that in the year 2099, somewhere in the street of Paris, there is a young artist sitting in front of his notebook PC, playing 3-D transient CFD code as a form of art. In front of him, there is a big bucket collecting some donations. (3). In the past 30 years, we have been using the two-equation turbulence models, so in 2099, they will still use two-equation models. (4). Nothing will be changed, if no one is trying to change it. Unfortunately, in the business world, to survive means to change. To change means to do research, like Du Pont, Intel, Microsoft,....a company can not survive without a core group of research people. Displaying a series of CFD codes on computer is just like the young artist in the street of Paris in the year of 2099.