Anonymous
My feedback
24 results found
-
7 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAnonymous
shared this idea
·
-
10 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
14 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
25 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
19 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
26 votes
We are looking into this, but for the majority of cases it might be that there is already a significant improvement related to this with the new “Clip meshing” which was released with version 11.0 of the software, but in a prototype state, please ensure outputs are reviewed before use. The reason it provides an improvement is that it does a coarse mesh first (which is likely to remain unchanged if only small amendments are made) and follows this with a more detailed mesh after. It would be great to get any feedback you might have on your experiences with the Clip meshing and consistency of results.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
34 votes
The approach which we are looking to leverage here is one which deviates a little from the original request but gives the same ability to interrogate results part way through a simulation. After investigating options, the best appears to be to have a run for the total duration you are interested in, then set a state saving checkbox in the run and when you wish to interrogate simulation results stop the simulation. We will then make use of ICMLive developed concatenation of results to allow us to tie in the “continuation run” with the results which were stopped earlier. There is a lot more detail to this than I can add here, but it should meet the need.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
The conveyance tool in ICM right now gives a conveyance graph that is basically wrong and it is not the one that the engine uses.... This has been reported many years ago and still not fixed. Just try putting a trapezoidal section and you will get a straight line! So I guess that would need to be fixed before