I added a short note at the top of this page about limiting the length of the code descriptions - this is the result of a discussion in the wiki forum late last year - and I added a link to the copyright page to hopefully head off any more submissions of copyrighted material. I haven't started to look to hard at the individual pages yet - I'll start that later this week. Finally, I have removed all of the links to nonexistent pages in the free solvers section. I'm not sure how that looks. Any opinions? --Jasond 15:48, 6 June 2007 (MDT)
- It looks great I think. It is very good that someone works on the code section. It is one of the most frequented sections. About the description of the codes. What I think is most important is that we never accept any advertisements in these descriptions. Everything should be verifiable and objective truths. Hence, just writing that a code is accurate and uses state-of-the-art models and numerics is not good. Describing which models and methods that are used should be okay though, as long as adjectives like "good", "accurate", "best" etc. are used very sparingly. About the copyright issue. We must of course ensure that we don't break any copyrights. However, I don't think that companies will have any problems with using their descriptions of their codes, on the opposite, that is probably what they want. Some descriptions have also been written by the code companies themselves. For example, the Gridgen description was written by John Chawner and Rick Matus, two of the top people in Pointwise. It is really not that good that companies themselves write these decriptions since that has a tendency to always produce advertising material. Pointwise have been very good at avoiding advertisements and unverifiable adjectives though. --Jola 03:22, 7 June 2007 (MDT)
- I guess that I generally agree. However, the webpage copying looks to be more widespread than I initially thought. I would rather have no description pages at all than have pages that are cut-and-paste jobs. On the Gridgen page, I guess my objection is that it is rather long - and they have their own web presence for that sort of thing. It does fit your requirements, though, and maybe we should add the part about "verifiable and objective truths" to the text on the code page. --Jasond 13:55, 7 June 2007 (MDT)
- Yes, just having cut-and-paste copies of web-sites that can just as well be linked to directly is not good. We will just have old data that takes time to maintain and gives nothing extra. And just as you talked about if the original authors are not aware of it we will also break their copyrights. I think that you have started a good job of cleaning this section up. I will try to add something about the CFD-Wiki policies and the "verifiable and objective truths" requirement unless you or someone else have done it tomorrow. Now I have to go to bed, it is running late over here in Sweden --Jola 15:46, 7 June 2007 (MDT)
- As of right now, there are only a few issues left (as far as I know): Delaundo- which is a public domain code (so I left the text as is even though it is cut-and-pasted), vtk,vtk.Net - Tony posted these but does give specific attribution, and there are a few pages that are basically nothing. I leave these as is unless there is opinion otherwise. I would still like to shorten the Gridgen page, but I won't do that unless you specifically agree that it needs to be shortened (and this is the last mention of it from me). I think I'll leave the policy modification to you, but I might add a little more text to my "note to contributors" - I want to keep things reasonable, but I don't want to discourage contribution. For the free codes, it might be a good idea to figure out a way to include license information on the main Codes page - maybe break the list into a "GPL" list and an "Other free license" list. Wouldn't it also be nice to have some sort of information on the language used? --Jasond 10:54, 8 June 2007 (MDT)
What does a typical cfd software toolchain look like?
Can anybody help me figure out the file formats and programs involved in completing cfd calculations etc.? Starting with blender, the open source 3D modeling program, I can get a mesh file (gmsh can read this), but then the majority of the cfd simulators do not seem to have a lot of documentation on how to set up a simulation (like the specifications, parameters, the types of materials, the density etc. etc.), but maybe I am missing something? And after that, how can I relate that to lift, thrust, and other properties involved in making sure, say, an airplane could fly? -- Kanzure 12:11, 3 March 2008 (MST)
- Alright. I am starting to understand. If anybody needs some help, don't hessitate to ask. :) -- Kanzure 10:17, 9 March 2008 (MDT)
I tried to fix the dead Femwater link, but the spam filter prevented me. So someone with higher privileges needs to change it from:
- Femwater -- Femwater code
- Femwater -- Femwater code
Slffea 11:16, 12 June 2008 (MDT)
- I fixed it. I also had the same problem with spam denial at first. It was due to an old link on the page that has been added to a spam database that CFD-Wiki uses. The old link was not directly related to CFD so I removed it and then it worked. I assume that it will now also work for you when the old spam related link is gone. --Peter 02:10, 13 June 2008 (MDT)
- Thanks. I thought that removing the link would fix things, but decided to defer it to someone else. Slffea 10:47, 13 June 2008 (MDT)
Changed to table format
Since it's often hard to figure out what solvers go with what kind of meshes and vice-versa, I've changed the format from a straight list to a table, with supported file types for both meshes and solvers (in the free code area, though the commercial code area could use the same thing). Please update with whatever you know.