XANSYS Message: 20722 [Go back to message list]
[bookmark on del.icio.us]
No rating yet
Subject: Re: BASIC IMPROVEMENTS
Author: Rick Morgans
Date: 2001-01-31 19:07:00On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:47:19AM -0800, Siamak Komaie wrote:
> I would like to add some points as well. I really
> believe following improvements may help handling large
> models by APDL:
> 1-Allowing users to develope their own functions like
> e.g. nx(), arnode(), ndnext() ...
> 2-Variable declaration. Lots of mistakes are prevented
> this way. Like C language. Moreover, Type definition
> can be a good idea. I think all variable are
> considered as double precision values now.
> 3-Being able to define local array varibales in
> Macros.
Or macros having their own namespace (I know ARxx and trailing _)
> Presently local scalar variable can be deifined inside
> a macro (as the arguments) but array variables can not
> be passed to a macro. All arrays should be global
> variables which is not appropriate from programming
> point of view. Being able to use array variables as
> function arguments is very helpful too.
> 4-I have encountered some cases which I needed boolean
> operations for a logical *if. It would be a good idea
> to introduce it. In this case I was made to use nested
> *ifs that, of course, impose some overhead to the
> command interprator.
> I belive added to outstanding features of APDL moving
> it toward a structured type programming language is
> very useful. If I made any mistake in understanding
> present features of APDL, please let me know.
I have to pipe up here as well... I'd love all these features in
APDL... In my humble opinion APDL is THE thing that makes ANSYS.
Rick
> --- Vincent RAILLARD
> wrote:
> > I've just find in the archive, a discussion about
> > the future of ANSYS
> > few weeks ago. I wonder if anyone else would like to
> > have the
> > following three basic improvements:
> > - being able to perform booleans such as
> > substraction without having
> > to unmesh a lot of attached volumes or area. For
> > example, if unmeshed
> > volume #1 as a meshed volume attached through area
> > #3, you can't
> > substract anything from volume #1 even if area #3
> > is not concern by
> > the boolean.
> > - having a picking entity like the PRO/E one. I hate
> > to have to guess
> > where the entity hot point may be in order to pick
> > what I want.
> > - being able to move keypoints of a curved line
> > without getting a
> > straight line as a result (ie, a hole in a plate
> > becomes a square
> > !!!)
> > As a conclusion, I'm sure it is important to improve
> > the
> > multi-physics, the solver speed, the meshing
> > accuracy but I'm also
> > sure that I can save a lot of time and hairs if my
> > three wishes are
> > fulfilled (ALADIN, help me).
> > Vincent RAILLARD
> > POMA-OTIS
> > Savoie Technolac BP 288
> > 73375 LE BOURGET DU LAC
> > Tel: 33 (0)4 79 26 49 27
> > Fax: 33 (0)4 79 26 49 01
> > Email: Vincent.Raillard@p...
> Dipl. Ing. S. Komaie
> Universitaet der Bundeswehr Muenchen
> Instituet fuer Wasserwesen
> Werner Heisenberg Weg 39
> 85577 Neubiberg
> Email:komaie_s@y...
Rick Morgans
Postgrad Student CAE Consultant
ANVC Group Proen Design Aust
Dept. Mech. Eng. 1/157 Burbridge Road
Uni of Adelaide 5005 Hilton SA 5033
Ph: +61-8-8303-3847 Ph: +61-8-8152-0800
Fax: +61-8-8303-4367 Fax: +61-8-8152-0888