It would do Autodesk and its users a lot of good to make the user interface and relevant functionalities more unified between Autodesk simulation programs. The extremely different interfaces not only seems sloppy, it also results in a very disjointed user experience when transitioning between programs that are very similar in nature and should be similar in operation.
Unifying key functionality should be the top priority. Key functionality like:
- CFD's import and update capabilities
- CFD's Decision Center
- CFD's displaying of boundary condition information in the simulation Tree
- CFD's quick-hide functionality
- FEA's measurement tools
- FEA's results "presentations"
- FEA's more advanced selection/hiding capabilities (CFD can't multi-select faces/volumes and then hide them)
- FEA's part renaming capability
- FEA's button to close the current simulation under the File menu (CFD doesn't have this and you have to exit the software to close a simulation)
Unifying functionality should be followed closely by unifying the user interfaces, in areas such as:
- The layout/structure of the Setup and Results. CFD's method is probably more intuitive and in keeping with the Ribbon interface. But the "Simulation" panel should probably be moved to a new "Analysis" tab like FEA has. This could even pave the way for a new Solve "environment" with a better, more expanded Solve interface and with an advanced and helpful solving setup wizard as suggested here.
- Selection functionality is very different between the two programs
- Material assignment is very different between the two programs
- Boundary condition assignment is very different between the two programs (FEA's method of applying loads is MUCH more intuitive than CFD's method of applying boundary conditions)
- Pretty much everything about the Design Tree is very inconsistent between the two programs
- The look of the Message Window/Details area is very different
- The look of some buttons and icons is very different
- The legend adjustment tools/methods are very different, as is the creation of mirror/cut planes and other shared post-processing functionalities
- The method of saving a Share/Archive file is very different
Of course, these are two different programs with two very different purposes. But they are both Autodesk programs and they are both for simulation, and they both have the same basic workflow (import, pre-processing/simulation setup, solving setup, solve, post-processing/results viewing) and the need for the same key functionality (design comparison, design update, design export/share, etc.). In my opinion it looks sloppy and unprofessional for the interface to be so inconsistent between these sister programs. Not only that, but as I said above, it negatively impacts user experience when transitioning between programs, be it regularly or for the first time.
Unifying the user experience between these programs would go a long way to improve their quality and help Autodesk's simulation suite stand out against the competition.
