In my case, I usually improve the geometry of the thing I am analysing. Perhaps one of the Russian kernel development firms could help? Until then, what is there now is quite useful, and personally I’d rather see engineering hours going into related issues such as the postprocessor and more analysis functionality! Every other self-respecting structural and many CFD packages include some kind of geometry editing and creation tools, either as a preprocesser or something more like a CAD system. As for where or whether Simscal should evolve to allow broader solid modelling alterations (reshaping and adding features) I dont really see an alternative. If needed to do more, I dont think I’ve be happy to use anything less than a ‘proper’ solid modeller. The ones currently available are half the battle, perhaps. If I remove one radius too many, I would feel foolish and see having to go back to the original CAD once more as a suitable punishment for not having my mind on my work! Ultimately, an embedded ‘headless’ direct modeler such that used by Spaceclaim or IronCad might be more useful. The to’ing and fro’ing is so frustrating that I only use Simscale where I need creep or loads of CPU cycles.įrom a quick use, I’d say 50% of my geometry manipulation needs are now there. It almost always is recursive for one reason or another. My current workflow is usually out of the client’s modeler into Creo via STEP for de-featuring and geometry prep using Direct Modelling (Ansys Spaceclaim does the same thing) then over to Simscale via STEP (not Parasolid) then load case build. Ansys or Creo Simulate that have inbuilt 3D modeler for de-featuring parts, repositioning or blanking-off unnecessary bodies, sectioning, adding coordinate systems and points and so forth. 
SPACECLAIM VS IRONCAD CODE
It literally is the difference for me between choosing Simscale for an FE study and choosing another code e.g.
Its a good start Muhammad in fixing one of the more annoying aspects of Simscale i.e.
0 kommentar(er)
