Autodesk CFD vs. SAPPHIRE Structure

We use a lot of Autodesk software and of course Autodesk CFD package. Integration with Inventor is pretty good. Models can be open right away in Autodesk CFD. The software saved lots of time in testing some glass units so we didn't need to perform too many real tests. Also, we used the software to improve our designs.

Incentivized

In our organisation, we are 10 designers working with sapphire. We are able to design multiple units of building without any problems. The learning curve is not small but when you start to master the software, it is incredible. The precision of this software is amazing. If needed, you can easily share your file with a coworker if you need helps...

Incentivized

• Analyze heat transfer
• thermal analysis
• helps minimizing prototyping parts

Incentivized

• Automatically generating different elements to save time.
• Designing and calculating elements.
• Providing a clear material listing.

Incentivized

• more options in the software
• better reports
• better interface

Incentivized

• Not friendly user
• Maybe providing to many options to do one thing.
• Big Learning curve if you want to to big buildings.

Incentivized

We chose Autodesk CFD as the integration within Autodesk products is great. Also it's price was another element in choosing it. We really like the interface as it's very similar with Inventor and other Autodesk solutions. The mesh capabilities are very powerful and easy to be refined. Reports provided are easily created

Incentivized

SAPPHIRE is way more complete and precise than EzCad. You can't just draw a bunch of lines and make it works( even if in reality it doesn't work). Your work needs to make sense in order to design it. If you make mistakes the software will tell you and you will need to correct your mistakes.

Incentivized

• definitely saved money in our design process
• improved existing 3D models

Incentivized

• Faster turn around time
• More precise than ever
• Great data exportation

Incentivized