2 Replies Latest reply on May 11, 2007 8:15 AM by Francesco Rustichelli

    cosmos geostar problem

    1-6IQYAK May 8, 2007 10:52 AM
      i am using both cosmosworks and geostar.
      but cosmosworks is very very user friendly.
      environment is very easy.everyone can understand the concepts.

      but geostar is entirely different.
      everyone is difficult to understand.
      environment also not good.
      both are cosmos products. but different environment.
      is any reason for this?
      • 863 Views
      • Categories: Simulation
      • Tags:
        • cosmos geostar problem
          genexxer genexxer
          genexxer genexxer May 8, 2007 6:53 PM (in response to 1-6IQYAK)
          yes reasons abound but they don't help. What are you simulating? I use some of geostar- for dynamics and magnetostatic. I know its painful and success is very dependent on the order of the commands.

          It goes something like this:
          1. model and export to geo from cosmosworks
          2. in the geo file, add material properties if necessary
          3. then append the commands for things like time curves and type of solver and solver settings
          4. then curve dependent boundary conditions should be added
          5. then add the commands to store results of certain nodes to the database
          6. then add the run command
          7. then add the post processing commands...xy plots or fringe plots etc.
          • cosmos geostar problem
            Francesco Rustichelli
            Francesco Rustichelli May 11, 2007 8:15 AM (in response to 1-6IQYAK)
            Geostar has a different architecture as it is an older productline.
            It shares several solvers with COSMOSWorks, but I do not think itsinterface will be changed significantly.

            This because it takes resources, and I suspect SWX Corp. prefers toinvest those resources more into moving every possible solver tothe SolidWorks environment, rather than trying to improve a productwhich cannot evolve a lot.

            I agree with the strategy (you can see interesting news in Cosmos2008),
            but sadly this is not a good outlook for the people usingthe features that will never be moved, or moved later.