# FEMaster as a FEM solver **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature Requests\ **Created:** [July 18, 2026, 5:47am UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/femaster-as-a-fem-solver/3572 "2026-07-18T05:47:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 13
**Author:** ![Luecx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Luecx](https://prepomax.discourse.group/u/Luecx)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2026, 5:33pm UTC](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/femaster-as-a-fem-solver/3572/13 "2026-07-18T17:33:56Z")
Hello Matej, Sergio and others, i am the author of FEMaster and would absolutely love to assist you in anyhting you could need for this if you decide to do it. Regarding a few comments on this channel and maybe some background. I was working in Munich during my bachelors degree at MTU (thats where Guido Dhondt, author of calculix worked as well). I had some insights into calculix and read the book from Guido Dhondt. I thought that I could do those things myself in a modern c++ object oriented framework. The fact that I used `*SUPPORT` instead of `*BOUNDARY` is probably a blunder and i could just add the compatibility for that. The fact that I didnt use `*STEP`but `*LOADCASE` is also a blunder probably. If it simplifies things for you, I am happy to use other keywords. But i decided actively to move away from certain keywords that abaqus and calculix use, for example the `*CLOAD, OP=...` bothered me greatly.. I dislike carrying loads from one step to another. Instead I went with the Hypermesh option of load-collectors and support-collectors which contain loads and supports and can be referenced from the steps. Also one major flaw inside CalculiX/Abaqus is that `*TRANSFORM` is applied onto nodes which means that you cannot apply a load and a support in different coordinate systems onto the same load. In FEMaster i didnt do that but instead apply it onto loads and supports directly. Another thing is constraint handling in femaster. Ill be honest: The nonlinear solving is a little bit weird at the moment and all the constraints are built to work in a linear analysis. Nonlinear tie does probably work but nonlinear connectors will probably be messy when the rotations get large (ill work on this asap). But I dropped the assumption that calculix and abaqus made which is that a slave-surface can only be used once as a slave. I have different way to handle constraints. ELIMINATION is what abaqus and calculix use. its very fast but has this limitation. Alternatively one can use NULLSPACE which is numerically a little bit worse but can deal with cyclic constraints. Also there is LAGRANGE which is viable in some cases… Best, Finn --- _[View the full topic](https://prepomax.discourse.group/t/femaster-as-a-fem-solver/3572)._