| Comments about various FEA Software Packages | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Finite Element Analysis Basics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Develop a basic understanding of FEA and its applications. - Develop a theoretical background for solving practical problems. - Learn how to create models efficiently and effectivelyDevelop a basic understanding of FEA and its applications. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Computational Mathematics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mathematical modeling: -- Physical phenomena: -- testing prototypes makes this method expensive. Mathematical model: --too complex for paper/pencil solution Computational model: -- approximation of math. model Methods, algorithms, codes, display Interdisciplinary: Science/Engineering Core Mathematics Numerical Analysis Computer Science Software Engineering | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Finite Element Analysis Software Feedback in DejaNews | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subject: Re: ALGOR users | From: Clark Reynolds [email protected] Date: 1998/03/09 Newsgroups: sci.engr.analysis [email protected] wrote: > How does ALGOR compare to PATRAN, NASTRAN, SINDA, GRIDGEN, ANSYS, etc.?> I have used PATRAN, NASTRAN (not a preprocessor BTW), IDEAS, FEMAP, and (unfortunately) ALGOR. ALGOR is the ONLY software so far that I havenot been able to figure out. There is nothing the least bit intuitiveabout it and the 'roadmap' crap they tout is just a crutch to make up for its lack of user friendliness. The only good thing I can say for ALGOR is that they will try their best to help you. They were very responsive whenever I called for help. But, even so, good help doesn't make up for crappy code. You couldn't give me a copy of it! For the biggest 'bang for the buck' in an FE pre/post processor, try FEMAP. It's very cheap (~3k) relative to the big guys (~25k) and can do 90% ofthe stuff they can. Subject: Re: FEA i-deas vs. Mechanica From: Ryan.Simmons @ gsfc.nasa.gov (Ryan Simmons)Date: 1998/03/11 Newsgroups: sci.engr.analysis >> We are looking at purchasing FEA i-deas or Mechanica. Any opinions? >>I have used both of these packages. Of the two, I think that IDEAS is >>the more powerful. Mechanica (and I haven't used it in about 3 yrs so take this accordingly) >> seemed to be most useful for small piece-parts. ... >>As for IDEAS, I absolutely detest Master Series. They couldn't give me a copy of it. ... >>But, I would suggest you check out a FEMAP/NASTRAN package. ... There are differences here that need to be clarified. I-DEAS tries to be a do-it-all design, analysis, optimization, fabrication program. Depending on what modules you purchase, you can create drawings, you can (try to!) create finite element models, and you can create NC source for fabrication. IMHO, in their quest to do all these things, SDRC has missed the boat on some areas, particularly analysis. Our designers use it quite successfully, but I would NEVER use I-DEAS for analysis. They have their own solver, but our tests have shown it to be lacking.Pro/Mechanica is a so-called
|
Favourite links
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been visited
|