![]() ![]() I believe the successful selection for the software really is the one that's most commonly known among the domain of engineers and the most process effective tool in these cases. ![]() For each kind of analysis purpose in any specific branch of FEA, there might be "2-3-4 strong competitors" each time. Every FEA tool is written for a specific purpose really. Having used around 12 different FEA pre/post processor packages for linear/non-linear/modal/forced frequency response/modal transient response/transient/kinematic analyses, I feel that there is a huge difference between FEA tools. If we are only looking at a complete design & analysis phase of our own, then it really comes down to what industry and what boundary/loading conditions we need to implement. ![]() get the technical help, do not listen (only) to the salesmen.Īpart for my preferred tool (starts with "C") where all sellers are PhDs and can answer all technical questions, I have had some tough fights with vendors of older and more traditional FEM software having salesmen not knowing what they are telling us, and really lying straight-out (or violating Physics, lets hope by ignorance) on theirs tool capabilities.įor these new tools you can also take advantage of young collaborators, eager to grab new approaches, but these youngster lack experience, so having an open-minded old-timer behind is an asset ) You other important point, where I fully agree: You work at a high conceptual level, with physics and you can mix any physics, this opens new possibilities, and future expansions. ![]() Personally, for my job of R&D consultancy, the latter is a MUST, it's also what the most recent programs propose. the more modern multiphysics-multidomain tools ? Are you going for the few-physics engineering-efficiency, or Indeed buying the right tool is difficult: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |