FS 2000 v/s Caesar II 1

[Sid7]

Has anyone been using FS2000 for piping stress analysis? Any views how it compares against the Caesar II?
I have been using Caesar II and big fan of the same and hence prejudice. Appreciate if anybody has opinion in this matter.
Siddharth.

 

[BigInch]

Just curious. What's your reason for changing? Assuming you have one. Something you don't like about Caesar or something you do like about FS2000?

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

 

[Sid7]

In management's terms budgetary considerations!
Well the core reason for comparison is that its Caesar II work thats claims more work hours than tendered, in manamement's view. I understand this is a very hot topic.

Checking the usability for small tie-in spools models and riser analysis!

Thanks BigInch. Its not decided to change yet.

 

[LSThill]

Sid7 (Mechanical)

What is the link

http://www.???

to the application software FS2000?



L S THILL

 

[BigInch]

You think FS will be faster to use then? That's a good question. Let's specifically ask that one.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

 

[Sid7]

lsthill (Mechanical)

http://aes-uk.com/fs2000.htm

 

[Sid7]

Indeed very good question.
Well wih the computing capabilities I dont think it would be any different, except that I do not have any FS2000 experience. There are lots of things to be considered when the question comes to budgeting piping manhrs.
I assume that if by chance the computing speed and analysis time is going to be same for a model in both the softwares then what else is going to matter is really the licence fees. thats the catch FS2000 seems to be more affordable than Caesar II.
But the question still remains unasnwered, as when the process parameters or other things in the design changes midway in the project whole stuff goes through minor/major changes for a typical analysis model and so does involve start to end quality cycle. So ultimately whether you use either software (extremely prudent assumption thats FS2000 competes Caesar II) project is going to end up with the extra manhours unless it has been accounted for in the tendering phase itself. My opinion.

 

[BigInch]

I don't think license fees are usually too important when you consider ease of use, intelligable output and the convenience of minipulating that output to get what you need to see quickly. A few projects or so where you can make 10 hours difference will negate the typical license fee differences.

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.msn.com

 

[StressGuy]

Whatever the interface, you've also got to consider what most of your available analysts are familiar with. Chances are, if you are looking at resumes, Caesar experience is likely to be there. Someone who has been using Caesar for many years is likely to be less efficient using some other program interface.

Although, with all the changes that Coade keeps making, that's probably less true today than it used to be.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

"All the world is a Spring"

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[Sid7]

Thanks everybody,

What about versatility in employability. Not every employer is keen to spend hours in training with new software all the time.

Its like a interchangeability of the employee in the industry. If one has cv with Caesar most probably the chances are high to be considered seriously in a wide employer spectrum. This shouldnt be interpreted as its opposite with rest of the caesar competitors. Its my opinion in limited knowledge and years of experience.

StressGuy

[highlight]All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.[/highlight]

I am too going to stick one of this. Good thing to make clear. thanks.