That’s another concern. If the validation can be solved but with significant workarounds incoming users might question the solution. It has happen before. We don’t need to go to any special case. Just take the first on the collection. LE1 Plane stress elements—elliptic membrane.
Yeah, I remember that discussion on the CalculiX forum. Such issues are very often caused by the lack of true 1D and 2D elements. Of course, the new FEMaster solver under development may help avoid them.
I think that one of the objectives of Calculix’s development should be the implementation of real 1D and 2D elements. In some days could be translated on the meeting they have.
Do you mean CalculiX User’s Meeting ? Yeah, I hope they will say more about their development plans. But I doubt they plan such a major change, apparently, they want to focus on refactoring and various bugs for now. That’s why we are looking for alternative solvers to have true 1D/2D elements.
For these reasons, I proposed about to develop the Benchmarks. I think, in order to have a traceability of the process, define a standard document with the different steps followed, information, where to locate the files used (for the CAD, pre and postprocessors and the input and output of the solver as well). Also the explanation of the model, comparison with analytical/experimental results…
Having worked with several FEM software packages, I have to say that PrePoMax is, in many ways, even ahead of some commercial solutions when it comes to the user interface. The same is true for certain features and the overall usability.
Matej is doing an absolutely outstanding job with PrePoMax. The amount of work, dedication, and progress he is putting into the project is truly impressive.
