I'm posting this for a subscription customer:
In Simulation Mechanical it isnt possible to export the deformed 3D model to a Step, Iges or STL file. I would like to see functionality implemented to allow for exporting to a CAD neutral format like STEP.
This is so obvious to me that I am very unpleasantly surprised that this is not possible in Simulation:
Units conversion on input.
I use INVENTOR a lot and for example when force magnitude is to be specified I can input 100kN, 1000N, 3000MN, and so on. this is also for other unites like pressure where I can specify 2000N/330mm^2 and this works not mantioning obout som thing like 3500kN/(250mm*250mm/4*PI)/(2*PI).
Why this basics are not in the user interface of Simulation where you deal with units even more than in inventor?
Hi, we were facing this problem for quite a while - the software doesn't fully support the use of cyrillic symbols in the filename and/or filepath. Whenever we try to use it the filename/filepath is not displayed properly (see attached pics) and sometimes some tools are not functioning at all. Please include the support of cyrillics in the next software release. Thank you.
Many non-english speacking users have a problem with english interface and help. That's not a big problem for scince-man, but many ordinary designers and engineers can problem with start using Autodesk Simulatiom Mechanical.
Autodesk can increase number of designers that will use Autodesk Simulation Mechanical if create a localized interface. Even more if it also translate a tutorials and help
Most of the time is very difficult to transfer results to a client. I usually do a report but sometimes they want to explore all the model. A result viewer that we can share with a client will be a tool to explain the results of a simulation
I would love to see an element "selection box" option similar to AutoCad's implemented on SimMech. For those who doesn't know it: when you drag the mouse to select elements from left to right, you only select elements entirely inside the box you dragged. When you drag the mouse from right to left, any element with even a small part inside the box will be selected.
Thanks for reading
Yossef El Didi
during a MES analysis, here is what could be great
1. Getting back the contact diagnostic that has been lost since the 2014 release
2. when having a convergence problem on a model with several surface contact, getting info on which contact surface parameter is to be modified to get a better convergence
The environment of the Stress Linearization at Simulation is currently very poor comparing it to Revit or AutoCAD configuration (such as Zoom, Pan, Rotate, Orbit tool).
Should have the same configuration of the FEA editor, at least.
Other difficulty is how to pick nodes for the SCL when they are internal to the model (at comples models, such as bridges). You can use Clipping Planes to cut the model, but there is always the right angle and the steps to cut sometimes are not well defined (maybe a control of the value of the step the plane moves) for the User Interface.
I request that an offset option is made available for plate elements, similar to the beam offset.
Without plate offests, plate reinforcements for pressure vessels can not be realistically represented in the software.
When performing a modal analysis, you can get a lot of modes with low or near zero mass participation. The results is a lot of garbage data. When moving on to a random vib or other vib analysis whose input data is from the modal run, the inputs are overwhelming to the solution.
The suggestion is to put a threshold parameter of "minimum reported mass participation" in the model that will delete the results under that threshold, thereby delivering a clean input set to the random vib analyses.
Some time you have a skeleton from FrameGenerator that you need to analyze more deep than Frame Analysis.
It would be very useful to send a part to SIM MECH that contains 2D or 3D Sketches.
Then at Sim Mech, uses beam elementos to simplify the modelling....
I'd like to be able to quickly see the 3D visualization of beams while in the FEA Editor without having to run 'Check Model' to see them in Results. Running 'Check Model' on a beam- or truss-only model is generally very quick and not a problem. However, I'm using more mixed meshes now and many are very large models. So the Check Model step just to see if I have all the desired beam cross-sections and all the right orientations can take a while.
It would be nice to have some sort of messaging feedback when running a simulation on the cloud. The actual system won't show if the simulation is stucked at meshing or it runned some iterations. For example the messaging system for Simulation CFD is better, it shows the progress of the simulation not just the percentage.
I often need to work with models that contain a big number of parts (solid or surface). And speed of interactions with Autodesk Simulation are very slow.
You need to import an assembly or comlpex part - wait for a long
You need to change property of parts (thikness, material, type of elements ...) - wait again.
And so on.
Compared to other CAE software, such as Ansys, Femap, Abaqus it is look like an AS parking brake is not off.
whether this situation will change for the better in the future?
We often use different Design scenarios to analyze the same geometry with different loading combinations.
Ideally we would just use one Design Scenario and multiple Load Cases. Since a load can only be applied to one Load Case, it forces users to either duplicate the loads if used in multiple combinations, or use the Combine Load Cases tool in the Results Options which increases the complexity of a project.
I would rather see an option that let users assign a load to multiple load cases in the load creation dialog.
This could be done by using commas between the load case numbers, or a more advanced dialog that is similar to the Combine Load Case tools were a table of load cases and multipliers could be entered.
Or perhaps a new tool that is separate from the dialog boxes could be created. The user could assign different loads to Load Cases and use multipliers in a table. The loads could be assigned to named groups(ex. Live Load, Dead Load, Pressure) and those groups could be used in the tables as well.
With named groups you could export commonly used combinations (ex. 1/2 Wind + LL + DL) and import the combinations in new models. Any loads created could be assigned to the appropriate group and the combinations would be automatically configured.
Currently if the model changes, we delete all of the design scenarios except for the 'Base DS', change the Base DS and recreate all of the loading combinations in new design scenarios by activating or suppressing the necessary loads and constraints.
A feature or tool like this would significantly reduce design times, especially when geometry changes arise.
I would like the ability to work on one design scenario while another scenario is busy doing something else.
For example, if a model is meshing in design scenario 1, or if the analysis is running in design scenario 1, I would like to be able to setup a model in design scenario 2, 3, whatever.