Hi All, I have lately visted the CFX Community Forum (members only), as opposed to this forum, I was amazed to see that most of the querries are not attended to either by fellow users or CFX staff. This is very suprising because it is expected that the questions posted to that forum are from registered members/licensed users, who I assume pay for the use of CFX. This is different from this forum because here any 'anonymous figure' like nyatoto can write anything and get attension. As for the Community Forum, one must give detailed address as one of the conditions to get access (login password).

My question is, why is that forum so inactive?. For example, out of 11 postings, some of which have been sitting there since Feb, only 2 have be replied to.

Is it just a forum for resources or ALSO to address our problems as a CFX Community??

Note that I have chosen to put these question here and not there because I believe here somebody will read and respond.

regards nyatoto

Hi nyatoto which particular forum on the CFX site are you talking about. Most postings I've seen there have been replied to, may be I'm missing something ? Robin, is very active there like he is on this site ? it just suprises me knowing how much effort they all put in. Bob

Hi Bob,

For example, http://www-waterloo.ansys.com/cfxcom...sp?FORUM_ID=54

nyatoto

point taken, yes there is very little response in that section of the CFX comunity web site. I personnally do not often use CFX4 so I'm not that interested. I would also like to say that having the option on the first page of the comunity site to filter which pages you are interested in is a little dangerous. I noticed this option just the other day and found a whole load of other forums that I had managed to filter out using this option. May be this is why there are very few responses in this section. May be you could step up and fill the gap ? Lets hope the postings recieve answers Bob

Hi Family members,

To me, CFX4.4 (structured grid) is like Fortran, I try others like CFX5.5.1 but still find myself using it again and again.!!

I hope the loyal members of the CFX family will join us there (CFX Community Forum) and make it actice too.

regards Nyatoto

Nyatoto,

I personally like the layout and ease of use of this forum and it is well attended. Is that not reason enough? I don't think that anonymity is the big driver.

By the way are you the one asking about grid resolution on the CFX-4 community forum?

Regards, John

I agree the layout here is good and response is fast.

Regards Nyatoto

CFX-4 is basically a dead product. It is no longer being further developed by CFX. Hence there is little to no activity on the CFX-4 forum. You will find that most of the active stuff is in the CFX-5 forums.

I'm not sure why most people would want to use CFX-4 these days unless there is some very specific model/capability not available in CFX-5. Usually this revolves around some sort of esoteric user fortran usage. Most CFX clients are using CFX-5 now.

Hi Neale, Just a small comment to you. I have very lately shifted to CFX5. So I got a bit offended by your comment

Particle dispersion could be a reason for sticking to CFX4 - user fortran is even not needed )). I am not even sure that has been implemented in 5.6.

Hi Neale,

If you are a VERY experienced in the field of modelling and simulation, you will respect the fact that some very brilliant brains spent some sleepless nights to develop such codes. All codes have areas weakness and strength. This is normal.

CFD users are intelligent people whose choice of code should be respected. You seem to question the wisdom of those who have chosen to use CFX4.4/4.3. This is really sad!! Up to this moment, some of us still use either CFX5.5.1 or CFX4.4 depending on the problem we are solving.

Regards Nyatoto

Easy now, Nyatotot Neale did write "I'm not sure why most people would want to use CFX-4 these days unless there is some very specific model/capability not available in CFX-5" Please note the these days. I did not understand Nealses comment that he queistioned the selection of CFX4 in the past.

I have used CFX4.* and even flow3d, I think it was version 3.* or wathever. At least I have been using the code for more than 10 years and I do think I have a user fortran for almost everything, but I am shifting slowly to CFX5 - because I do also beleive that CFX4 is at a dead end these days! with the many new models (not all yet though) CFX5 is a better alternative for most people. (But hell I miss CFX4 when I get stuck in CFX5 )), but I will Conquer

Hi All,

Let us just have a smooth transition. This is what some users are doing. And, I believe that CFX indeed or in principle still supports CFX4.4 [ref. CFX Community Website].

Thanks for the Solomonic pieces of advice, Jan and Bob.

Back to business...

regards Nyatoto

Lagrangian Particle Tracking in 5.6 includes the effect of turbulent dispersion.

Robin

)), but only steady state ))), I have just checked

Yes, well you didn't ask Transient support will come soon enough.

Robin

I am a bit surprised that turbulent particle dispersion is included. I think a asked a couple of months ago (when I was at rainy Harwell, you can check at the community site when it was - there is a thread about the climate in Harwell ) I did understand that turbulent particle dispersion would not be included - but I must have been mistaken. I have not installed 5.6 yet, so I can not check it. Is it the standard eddy life time? with an option to modify if to own and better and more accurate models ¨

Yes, but I'm not sure if you can customize it (yet).