Simcenter, from Siemens, is a suite of simulation tools and software. STAR-CCM+ is a multiphysics computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to study how products operate under real-world conditions.
N/A
SIMULIA
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
SIMULIA from Dassault Systemes is a simulation application for 3d objects.
N/A
Pricing
Simcenter STAR-CCM+
SIMULIA
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Simcenter STAR-CCM+
SIMULIA
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Simcenter STAR-CCM+
SIMULIA
Considered Both Products
Simcenter STAR-CCM+
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Simcenter STAR-CCM+
Competitive tools, both Fluent and STARCCM+, but the user interface and ease of learning, along with everything in a single interface, and a wide variety of proven physics capabilities, along with good scalability and automation, made the choice easy for me. Also, the user …
STAR CCM+ provides the capability of geometry cleaning, meshing, solver, and post-processing, all included in one license, when compared to other applications. All these functions are available in a single user window that simplifies the usage and speeds up productivity. All …
MARC can do the job from an FEA point of view. It even appears better at a couple of things such as 2D remeshing and surviving with highly distorted meshes. So I regard it as a very competitive alternative. I prefer SIMULIA because the GUI is so much better, especially the …
For my personal use case, I found that STAR CCM+ was extremely easy to use, learn, and set up cases for Lagrangian particle tracking cases. Each option was easily found, and parameters to fine-tune the cases were very simple to execute. I had to create a custom field function with a nested If-else loop to account for particle capture on the filter media surface. Setting this up was very easy, and the reference material provided by STAR CCM+ was helpful. Sometimes, on the older version of STAR CCM+, when visualizing the volume mesh, some cells tend to disappear; this shows up even when plotting contour plots on the same section plane. This is improved in the newer version of STAR CCM+.
It appears to be evolving more towards large users with the 3D EXPERIENCE, while becoming less focused on small users like me, becoming more expensive and limiting the number of cores while most PC's now can easily run 8 cores. Of course it is great for non-linear and highly non-linear scenarios, and especially good at combing a huge variety of element types. I guess it is not best suited for linear analysis due to its high price, but even in this case you have to put in the balance the ability to make the best choice of finite elements and being so straightforward about actually using them.
Post-processing results is also very intuitive, making extracting results very enjoyable and easy to use.
The Advanced rendering options that are available in STAR CCM+ can really help make very well-generated videos that can make the simulation easy to visualize, share with non-technical engineers, and showcase the study done.
Create and modify designs from within the CAE environment. Although it has very basic capabilities, it is quite capable of generating 2D and 3D parametric designs. I have even generated some "fancy" designs which ended up being a challenge for draftsmen in specialized solid modeling CAD. I also like the fact that being somewhat limited, it forces you to stick to simple and effective design.
Addressing structural instabilities such as snap-through or buckling. This was such a challenge when I started using Abaqus, I had to take a course on "achieving convergence". Coming from there, I can see how SIMULIA has become increasingly able to give you the numerical tools or tricks you need to achieve convergence consistently. In the past I often feared running into different convergence issues as I moved across different produce sizes, leading to changes in the analysis approach, which would make it more difficult to compare them. I just went through a 12-size family in 5 dimensional scenarios each, without a single issue after ensuring convergence with the first couple of sizes.
Beautiful pictures. The post-processing of results enables me to generate highly illustrative, fairly easy to understand and elegant presentations, by controlling transparency and results shown independently on different groups, which I can select by material, location, etc.
Integration with other products from Siemens (similar level as we have with Abacus)
Speed up the lagrangian solver
Improved guidence on uFluidics & evaporation models
Interoperability (HEEDS, AMEsim, System Modelling Workbench but also with non siemens products and open source codes required for LBM, DSMC, PIC, DFT...
Exporting sketches. For example, you can import dxf for sketches, but you can't export dxf. This is a major drawback for me, because I often communicate with customers through dwg or dxf sketches. If I can't export dxf, my sketches in CAE are "dead". I have to redo them in the dwg sketch. It is so inconvenient, I often end up making the sketches in DraftSight, so I can export them to CAE but I still have the originals in dwg format.
CAE doesn't remember element type assignment by sets. Sometimes when I reconfigure or modify a design, I regenerate sets and surfaces, and this in turn updates material assignments, interactions and loads almost automatically. This doesn't happen with element types, so I often end up submitting a job with the wrong element types.
Mesh regeneration and re-mapping in 2D within the job. I need this a lot to model axisymmetric assemblies with sharp indentation the destroys the original mesh. I had it in MSC/MARC and it worked great. Abaqus has it only for 3D. I have tried alternatives like lagrangian/eulerian and eulerian domains but it's still more complicated.
Extremely well organized and friendly, reflecting the latest approaches in solid modeling and adding the FEA part so seamlessly for the user. It's a joy to use. I'm aware some people would complain about the meshing capabilities and thus prefer using HYPERMESH. Fortunately not my case. I did wish I had HYPERMESH a couple of times, but for most of my projects CAE meshing is fine.
STAR CCM+ technical support was very quick to respond when a ticket was raised for issues. For support in setting up a test case for the Lagrangian particle tracking technique, a support assist agent was assigned immediately, and after having a detailed discussion, my problem was understood by them, and a suitable test case was shared, which I was able to understand and use to build my case.
I keep getting the feeling that it is drifting away from small users. I don't feel so comfortable with the SWYM community approach. I felt much better when you could just email or call HKS and you would feel like you were talking to a real expert who understood your situation. When I was reassigned to reseller in Argentina, which is like the other side of the world for me, I appreciated the cultural closeness, but I had to say goodbye to the level of support I had from HKS and learned to "support myself."
Competitive tools, both Fluent and STARCCM+, but the user interface and ease of learning, along with everything in a single interface, and a wide variety of proven physics capabilities, along with good scalability and automation, made the choice easy for me. Also, the user guide and tutorials available to explore various kinds of Physics capability, and A single license for access to all physics, also made it easy.
MARC can do the job from an FEA point of view. It even appears better at a couple of things such as 2D remeshing and surviving with highly distorted meshes. So I regard it as a very competitive alternative. I prefer SIMULIA because the GUI is so much better, especially the ability to create actual parametric designs in CAE. ANSYS doesn't cut it for me. I tried it for 1 month and I would see how much I would struggle with convergence in large deformation and large displacement situations with hyperelastic materials with which I have to deal all the time. Also the GUI is not as well built an integrated as in SIMULIA.
I can't think of anything but positive of course. I mean, we've been improving our products, we've been using this to test less to make sure that our products will meet the requirements and meet the objectives that we have. And I've never seen a case where it has been proven otherwise. So yeah, it's been great for us.
I don't even bother doing an ROI. Without SIMULIA I would be pretty much out of business. Except for the fact that I could still have an alternative with MSC/MARC.
Price is becoming a more difficult hurdle for small users. It appears I have survived because there was a 50% discount on my small 6-token package. Without this special price I would have to close my business. I'm currently exploring alternatives.
A more flexible scheme enabling to add tokens over short periods of time or paying per use could be an interesting possibility.
