[bennn]

Hi,

I also noticed that cfMesh gives different results when ran several times. There are random functions in the source code that you can find with grep... I agree it is a bit scary but results are quite consistent, most of the time a bad mesh will remain a bad mesh, and a good mesh will remain a good mesh.

Regarding the workflow, here's what's working for me.

- Generate a detailed enough stl from salome/freecad etc... The default export settings from CAD softwares are NOT good enough, and sometimes you have to mesh the surface and export it. Several 100 of Mo is not uncommon as an input stl.

- Split your input surface in a single stl where you want cfmesh to catch a feature accurately : trailing edges etc... Then you can join them with renameBoundary by using a wildcard.

- A constant refinement is always better, but can be undoable in some geometries.

- Use additionalRefinementLevels rather than boundaryCellSize and minCellSize.

- Use optimize option in boundary layer

- De-feature or increase refinement level where cfmesh gives bad quality cells

- Eventually if all else fails, you can extract the surface from a bad quality volume mesh generated by cfmesh, and use that surface as input to a new cfmesh generation. The surface mesh might be better and more waterproof than the previous one. This trick has worked quite well on really complex geometries for me in the past.

Good luck !