Please increase the number and variety of color maps available in the legend, and/or allow the user to import or create their own color map. Even the limited legends in Sim Mechanical are more flexible and useful.
The present color maps are very limited, and out of date with regards to current standards of data visualization - and may even cause users to be in violation of accessibility standards. In particular, the default rainbow map is:
(a) bad for color-blind users, a surprisingly large percentage of the population,
(b) bad because it artifically creates distinctions between regions while making it hard to judge real gradients.
(c) hard to use with the other color maps because they look similar but have different meanings.
However, there's not much alternative in Sim CFD at present... The greyscale color maps allow accurate visualization of realistic gradients, but are hard to see on neutral-colored backgrounds, and not very exciting. The thermal color maps are good but only for very specific uses.
There are a ton of resources on the web for explaining why rainbows are (usually) not appropriate
- classic: Rainbow Color Map (Still) Considered Harmful
- shorter: How The Rainbow Color Map Misleads
- target audience: Why Should Engineers and Scientists Be Worried About Color?
As well as good sources for generating and specifying useful color maps, and which is appropriate wil vary depending on the use (Color Brewer is popular). There are even ones that describe how to create a non-distorting disability-friendly rainbow (The Rainbow is Dead, Long Live the Rainbow!).
This seems like low hanging fruit and will keep people from turning to external software to do high value plotting of results.
It is puzzling that while we are meshing, we have to give away a licence in solving, forcing us to stop the jobs running in the queue, just to be able to mesh. In most commercial CFD (or FEA) software packages that I know of, I see that meshing and solving are completely exclusive of each otherin a single licence.
Majority of time of every CFD engineer is occuppied in meshing at his workstation. At the same time, he can't finish his job unless these meshes are run, often in the remote cluster etc. Sorry if I sound rude, but is it me, or has Autodeksk really employed this unfair and unjust tactic to engage a solver licence in meshing, thereby indirectly forcing users to go for additional solver licences, so that they can continue both meshing and solving uninterrupted at the same time?
I know this may call for a major overhaul in code (or maybe not), but is it not reasonable to demand that "meshing" and "solving" be treated exclusive of each other?
Could some sort of progress bar be implimented? Ideally this would consist of 2 parts:
1) Something that says that autodesk is still working such as the spinning symbols that other software uses
2) A progress bar estimating how long is left/how many more tasks must be done before completion
Please add the show/hide functionality for volumes in the browser when in the setup phases. With ctrl/shift select as well.
This would be useful when trying to hide volumes that are very small and can't easily be selected in the graphics interface.
Envisage Uk Ltd
There's been numerous occasions where simulation of water evaporations is needed. One example would be to simulate the water loss (through evaporation) for a heated processing chamber. The processing chamber processes sludge and liquid waste materials by heating it and extracting the water content.
The current CFD module for condensation is limited and it cannot fully capture water vapors moving in control volumes.
For an illustration, refer to the link below (under process flow):
The evaporation process happens in the heated Process Chamber.
According to ASHRAE standard 55, human thermal comfort is defined by a range of operative temperatures, which is a combination of air temperature and mean radiant temperature. Only under certain circumstances, it is acceptable to assume operative temperature is equal to air temperature. For example, when there is no radiant heating or cooling systems. I notice Simulation CFD does not report operative temperature in the result, not sure if it is calculated in the solver. We're hoping that operative temperature will be available in a future release.
Heat pipes are quite ubiquitous these days in electronic packaging. The short cut to model the heat pipe as a highly conductive (~50-100,000 W/mK) rod must be done very carefully as it does not take into account the heat transfer capacity based on temperature and tube diameter. If the one does not take into account these variables then the simulation will give extremely optimistic results.
It would be great if Simulation CFD had a Compact Material Model for heat pipes that would perform the necessary transfer curve for the model.
When doing 2D compressible analysis that include shocks, having adaptation would produce a more efficient and sharper result. Would also be a good test bed to test adaptation strategies before running a larger 3D model.