I want to apply for user support pages.I have done it unsuccessfully.I have buyed valid phoenics software.I don't know if i have right to use "user support page".How to do?Thank you.

The user support pages of CHAM's website are accessible only to those users who are in possession of a current maintenance contract for technical support of the PHOENICS code. Some users licence the PHOENICS software, but choose not to purchase a support contract and so they do not qualify for access to the support pages.

(1). Unless you are the experienced user of an old version of code and are currently using the old version only, then it is very important to have (or to purchase) the technical support all the time. Regardless of the brand of code you are using. (2). The code is almost useless, without the technical support. The code is only part of the story.

Dear JCChien

As a scientist I pressume you have some statistics (beyond your personal experience) to support your words "The code (I suppose you are talking about PHOENICS) is almost useless...". Have you?

If you are not talking about PHOENICS (I don't want to restrict your freedom to talking in a public forum), Why don't you specify the code you are talking about? Are you warning us about your Visual C code?

I am completely sure PHOENICS have more examples of successfull aplications than all the codes you have created in your whole life. Btw, I have statistics to support my words even if I don't know your codes.

Regards

Kike

(1). I think, any code, without the technical support is useless. (2). Technical support= code installation + code startup + code checkout + code training + code tutorial sessions + code convergence issues + code produced error messages + results interpretation. (3). Code(s) = source listings + compiled executable files + library files. (4). Almost useless = There is still a chance to get the accurate solution to your problem. (5). Your messages posted in the forum = (Free) Technical support. (6). My message here can be considered as "technical support to the message I posted earlier". Support means to follow up technically about the same issue. (7). Don't ask me to do technical support right now, I will be busy reading my spy stories.

Dear JCChien

Summarizing, you haven't a way to support your words beyond your own words. OK

Lets analyse your words, that I will take as a theorem (not proved),

"The code is almost useless, without the technical support" (a)

Lets suppose now it is true and stablish its logical corollary, which could be writen in that way:

"With the technical support, the code is quite usefull" (b).

You can remove the word (quite) it is too hard for logic, but could you consider (b) as true? I have in mind several contra examples.

Well, I can imagine it will not change your mind, so I let you with your spy stories. Have a nice weekend.

Regards

Kike

(1). The point I was trying to make was: When I was using commercial cfd codes, I was on the phone all the time, talking to the support engineers. (not always the same person) And I have many years of experience in CFD. (2). So, for the users without technical support, it is just impossible to get the problem solved and have a good solution. This message is for all readers who are using the commercial cfd codes. Whether you are going to get the right answer or not, depends on the good technical support. (I am assuming that the code is capable of solving the user's problem. ) (3). A code is useless, because it can not solve the user's problem by the user, not because the code is "absolutely useless". So, I was not addressing the "absolutely useless" issue, because commercial cfd codes are black boxes. There is no way of knowing the usefulness of a black box, until... (4). And even if you have good technical support, there is no garrantee that you will get your problem solved. So, if your goal is to solve your problem, do get the technical support. (it is possible to run a code without technical, but not with the general cfd codes.)

Dear JCChien

I have a couple of question for you.

When have you use commertial CFD codes?, 95% probable answer: "When I was starting (first 5 years after my debut) in a CFD branche"

Do you really (sincerely) think you can't handle PHOENICS code now (I mean with your experience)? 95% probable answer NO.

A CFD code could be a product, you have the money you can buy it, but scientific knowledge it is not. A good CFD code (even if it is commecilized) is the result of several (many) years of study and work of very good people (I have met some of them) and their knowledge is there inside. Should we think that with a few hours of reading the manuals we can get a good (scientifically reliable) result?

Some people think commercial CFD codes are like Windows OS. They install it in their machines (99% without to look users' instalation guide) and it is ready to do the job for us.

Btw, Have you read the Microsoft Windows Instalation Guide? (most probable answer: NO). Have you called Microsoft Technical support any time? (most probable answer: NO). You simply click the RESET button when Windows hang and everything is ready to work on Visual C again.

In my oppinion, people who buy a CFD code should know he(she) is buying a very complex scientific tool (not the Quake Arena). People should know the physics of their problems, the grid to use, the models to apply..., and you know it happen in a few cases. So, it is not estrange that the result could be a professional mistake.

The code could be a "back box", why not?. We use "black boxes" all the time. I am sure you think (as me) Windows is a "black box", but we use it, and we have no doubt we solve our OS problems with it. Some days ago you have said you can't handle your carburator because your car have a computer inside now. So, when you drive, your life depends on a "black box".

Maybe your expierence leads the conclusion "A code is useless, because it can not solve the user's problem by the user", but I think the keyword in your conclusion is not "code", it is "user".

I let you work, have a nice Sunday

Kike

(1). Yes, it is the user. (2). But if the user is not getting his (or her) solutions, then he is going to keep asking questions here. (3). And you are going to say that there is nothing wrong with the codes. (4). So, just leave the code alone, then everything would be fine. (perhaps, he does not need a code, perhaps, he can use some other codes, perhaps, he forgot he did not have a PhD in CFD, perhaps, the code is free and the forum is free.)(5)."Maybe your expierence leads the conclusion "A code is useless, because it can not solve the user's problem by the user", but I think the keyword in your conclusion is not "code", it is "user". ", YES, THE PROBLEM IS ALWAYS WITH THE USER, BECAUSE HE IS THE PERSON WHO STARTED THE TROUBLE IN USING THE CODE, TRYING TO SOLVE HIS PROBLEM. (6). I hope that next time when the supersonic Concord takes off the runway, the runway is free of particle and dust. The design of the airplane is perfect, it was passenger's fault, because they were the one who bought the ticket. (7). The issue is important, because a computer code is not very reliable, in most cases. Have you checked out the Windows/XP recently?

Dear JCChien

OK but the "Concorde" is still much safer than your car. That is what statistics say, remember it when you will go back home today.

Fortunately I work on Debian Linux and I use Windows 98 to play Quake (it is very well designed to support that games). Btw, there is Quake for Linux already.

Regards

Kike