SpaceIsBig
Aerospace
- Aug 30, 2012
- 3
I've been checking through a nukber of posts (over the last 2 years or so) regarding MSc Apex.
I've been reading up about it and it seems to be a bit of a 'let's throw out something, get people to start using it and then keep on bringing it up to current industry level step by step' sort of philosophy.
The documentation on the website is quite frankly crap.
For a start it's very difficult to find a full change history to see exactly how the program has developed between versions (sorry between animules).
One 'mega improvement' that's touted a version or two back was mid-plane meshing.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but FEMAP had this cracked around 2000 ! So, where's the big deal in that 'new capability'.
I'm also flummoxed at other 'enhancements' like rigid connections and the like which should be standard !
And I also saw one about 'being able to post-prcess in local co-ordinate systems !!! Wow !!!
PATRAN is a solid workhorse, maybe lacking some whistles and bells on the meshing side, but eh, we should be concentrating on reducing the meshing effort not just doing it more and more complicated just because it can be done.
What are other peoples current thoughts about this upstart Apex ?
Anyone really used it in anger yet on real projects or just tried out the demo ?
What's missing and what should be included as priorities ?
These are the questions MSc should be asking themselves instead of partaking in the PR bullshit battle with all other vendors.
Someone should tell them that Msc/XL (remember that little beauty) is all that anyon really needs. Anything more complex and your doing the analysis too detailed !!!
Maybe they should concentrate on solving the old 1984 conundrum ..... 4 nodes good, 3 nodes bad, yet all meshers dump a crap tria/tetrs mesh out as a matter of course if one hasn't taken the time to quadrilateralise the geometry enough !
P.S. - I'm NOT looking for a load of comments comparing with other pre-post programs, all that's been covered before on other posts (btw, PA_TRAN, FEMAP and HYPERMESH ... they ALL have their own place , adnvantagages and ALSO disadvantages, and usefulness.
I'm also sceptical about claims of any program wiping the floor with it's competitors too. I come from a generation who saw in the early 80's the SDRC claims that within I think it was 2 years SuperTab (that's the forerunner to I-DEAS)would be feeding back revised geometry based on iterative automated calculations and re-analysis directly back into the CAD model which would be auto-updated as a result.
Now, THAT would be automation, and yet here we are 35 years later and no one has got even close, why even IGES files are not fully standardised yet !!!! Dream on Isay , Dream on, but don't expect people to pay a fortune for undelivereable features.
I've been reading up about it and it seems to be a bit of a 'let's throw out something, get people to start using it and then keep on bringing it up to current industry level step by step' sort of philosophy.
The documentation on the website is quite frankly crap.
For a start it's very difficult to find a full change history to see exactly how the program has developed between versions (sorry between animules).
One 'mega improvement' that's touted a version or two back was mid-plane meshing.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but FEMAP had this cracked around 2000 ! So, where's the big deal in that 'new capability'.
I'm also flummoxed at other 'enhancements' like rigid connections and the like which should be standard !
And I also saw one about 'being able to post-prcess in local co-ordinate systems !!! Wow !!!
PATRAN is a solid workhorse, maybe lacking some whistles and bells on the meshing side, but eh, we should be concentrating on reducing the meshing effort not just doing it more and more complicated just because it can be done.
What are other peoples current thoughts about this upstart Apex ?
Anyone really used it in anger yet on real projects or just tried out the demo ?
What's missing and what should be included as priorities ?
These are the questions MSc should be asking themselves instead of partaking in the PR bullshit battle with all other vendors.
Someone should tell them that Msc/XL (remember that little beauty) is all that anyon really needs. Anything more complex and your doing the analysis too detailed !!!
Maybe they should concentrate on solving the old 1984 conundrum ..... 4 nodes good, 3 nodes bad, yet all meshers dump a crap tria/tetrs mesh out as a matter of course if one hasn't taken the time to quadrilateralise the geometry enough !
P.S. - I'm NOT looking for a load of comments comparing with other pre-post programs, all that's been covered before on other posts (btw, PA_TRAN, FEMAP and HYPERMESH ... they ALL have their own place , adnvantagages and ALSO disadvantages, and usefulness.
I'm also sceptical about claims of any program wiping the floor with it's competitors too. I come from a generation who saw in the early 80's the SDRC claims that within I think it was 2 years SuperTab (that's the forerunner to I-DEAS)would be feeding back revised geometry based on iterative automated calculations and re-analysis directly back into the CAD model which would be auto-updated as a result.
Now, THAT would be automation, and yet here we are 35 years later and no one has got even close, why even IGES files are not fully standardised yet !!!! Dream on Isay , Dream on, but don't expect people to pay a fortune for undelivereable features.