Hi Guys

I have a choice of either using CFX or OpenFoam for my PhD degree. Of these two softwares which one should I choose for my degree cosidering my future career in CFD. Thank you for your comment.

CFX, of course!

Why? Please

OpenFOAM has a lot more features in it and its open source. I can modify the code to fit my needs. I would not have to pay for CFX license which is sky high. I can purchase any cheap CAD program for geometry and meshing because pre-processing capabilities of OpenFOAM is its major set back.

I will be very thankful if you can back up your choice with some positive comments. Thank you

That´s the point! If you can modify this code, how to trust on it? Is OpenFOAM has an interface like cfx has? CFX has an easy and quick interface to modify yourself. Anyone is able to use CFX. I think so! I ask you again: is OpenFOAM has an easy interface like CFX? The price of CFX is too small, only US$2,000.00 per year for academic license.

That is for academic license. I would need research license to conduct my research which is very expensive. On the other hand OpenFOAM is open source and its developing very fast. Then probably in next ten years they would have over come all the set backs in OpenFOAM and everyone would be switching to OpenFOAM. So why not switch now!

CFX much better then OpenFOAM because:

1. lot of people use CFX to solve they problems. 2. CFX is a part of ANSYS and it can model multiphysics problems. 3. If you want work with CFD in future you can find a lot of companies using CFX, but mush less OpenFOAM.

OpenFOAM it is enthusiast code now. May be in far future OpenFOAM can catch up CFX but i dont believe this. Especialy because CFX and FLUENT in near future it will be one thing.

I have same deal, i am going to work with CFX for my Phd research, because they impose it to me. but i think for research, it is better to use OpenFoam which let us try our models.

i think also that CFX is a black toolbox made for engineer in the industry who needs results quickly, in this case it is better to use CFX.

but the best, is to use both softwares, to compare the results, and to see if your models in OpenFoam feet those of CFX, and experiments if we have.

it is interesting to have experience with CFX, because after your Phd, may be u will shift to industry, and probably u will need CFX knowledge.

Why not work with CFX, then verify using OpenFOAM? Your dissertation will hold more water if you have different packages yielding the same results. And you will have a better understanding of multiple software packages, plus you aren't out the cost of two packages, only the CFX

BTW I used Fluent for my PhD, and am using CFX now, and dabbling in OpenFOAM at home.

Thanks for the suggestion JWilliams. I was also starting to think on these lines. My only worry is that I will spend too much time on learning softwares.

I have a similar choice like you, but I've finished my PhD program. Now I am a postdoc and trying both packages.

I agree with JWilliams. In terms of easy-to-use, CFX is way better than OpenFOAM at the current stage. But OpenFOAM has more fun to play with, so I'll keep my hands on both.

As for time, we have to spend much more in this way, but it's how things work since we need to learn more...

CFD. You really need to ask what your end goal is after graduation. Faculty position? CFD developer? Consultant?

If you plan on the first two, and you want to be truly hard core, and actually have skills which will get you a decent job after graduation, then ditch the OpenFOAM or CFX idea completely.

Write your own code, learn something useful and impress your colleauges rather than trying to disentangle someone else's mess (OpenFOAM) for the next two years or rely on a commercial tool which may not suit your needs (CFX).

If you just want to be a CFD consultant then you would do better to go with learning a commercial package.

Learning a new software is much easier than learning the aero- and thermodynamics (CFD). After working for years with CFX I worked on a project whith Fluent. It'll take you nothing to get used to it (even though Fluent is somewhat old-fashioned in terms of user-friendlyness).

True enough. FLUENT and CFX are both great packages. FLUENT's GUI just sucks.

Sucks???

suck: n 1 chupada, sucção. 2 som de sucção, força de sucção. // vt+vi 1 sugar, aspirar com a boca, sorver. 2 chupar. 3 mamar. 4 absorver. 5 tragar, puxar. 6 embeber. she gave suck to her child ela amamentou o seu filho. // to suck one's thumb chupar o dedo. to suck the blood of s. o. chupar o sangue de alguém, explorar alguém. to suck the brains of s.o. roubar as idéias de alguém. to suck around Gír. bajular, puxar o saco. to suck up absorver, embeber, aspirar. to suck up to Coloq. bajular, adular, puxar o saco. to suck off Vulg. praticar felação, chupar.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suck

... 11.Slang. to be repellent or disgusting: Poverty sucks.

-CycLone