|
[Sponsors] |
October 29, 2004, 13:59 |
cfx is Difficult to learn?
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Many people say that CFX is difficult to learn as compared to FLUENT/!!! Is this true?
If true then why? CFX is best for steady state turbomachinery application as compared to FLUENT? I have seen that they almost provide the same options? Then on which basis comprasin made? I am confused. please do reply Waiting for ur valuable comments Thanking in advance!!! Regards SAM |
|
October 29, 2004, 15:06 |
Re: cfx is Difficult to learn?
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Learning to do colourfull fluid dynamics by pressing various buttons in a GUI is easy.
Learning the underlying physical and numerical theory is a tad harder. The second is required in order to produce meaningfull results. |
|
October 29, 2004, 15:12 |
Re: cfx is Difficult to learn?
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
wat u call the meaningresult. if we can show taht wat is happing in fluid then it is ok
|
|
October 31, 2004, 18:05 |
Re: cfx is Difficult to learn?
|
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi Sam,
The vendors for both codes would be very happy to arrange a trial of their code. Try them for yourself and find out. The important thing is how well the code simulates what you want to do. Use some representative test cases to make the decision yourself. Glenn Horrocks |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATTENTION! Reliability problems in CFX 5.7 | Joseph | CFX | 14 | April 20, 2010 16:45 |
Different flow pattern between OpenFOAM and CFX | AirS | OpenFOAM | 0 | January 12, 2010 08:08 |
heat generation in CFX | Ema | CFX | 4 | August 7, 2009 06:39 |
Electronics Enclosure Analysis with CFX | Simulation Engineer | CFX | 1 | April 22, 2009 12:08 |
CFX 4.4 installation problem | Pandu Sattvika | CFX | 1 | December 1, 2001 05:07 |