Wish List - Scan-and-Solve for Rhino2024-03-28T12:31:39Zhttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/forum/categories/wish-list/listForCategory?categoryId=6083097%3ACategory%3A354&feed=yes&xn_auth=nogrid resolution and other thoughtstag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2016-11-23:6083097:Topic:469122016-11-23T17:57:49.982ZAaron Evermanhttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/AaronEverman
<p>I read through all the previous wish list posts going back to 2010. It seems like a lot of progress has been made regarding assemblies and boundary conditions since Scan and Solve's inception.</p>
<p></p>
<p>There's quite a few wishes for a variety of features, all of them are probably very important in specific contexts. If I could cast my own 2cents out there...</p>
<p>I think people that are drawn to Scan and Solve probably could be classified by one or more of the following three…</p>
<p>I read through all the previous wish list posts going back to 2010. It seems like a lot of progress has been made regarding assemblies and boundary conditions since Scan and Solve's inception.</p>
<p></p>
<p>There's quite a few wishes for a variety of features, all of them are probably very important in specific contexts. If I could cast my own 2cents out there...</p>
<p>I think people that are drawn to Scan and Solve probably could be classified by one or more of the following three categories:</p>
<p>a) they're a Rhino3d CAD user and consequently appreciate the simplicity of an integrated FEA plugin.</p>
<p>b) they're an FEA user and appreciate the ease of use of Scan and Solve and its affordable price.</p>
<p>c) they're drawn to Scan and Solve because of the inherent capabilities of its unique meshfree approach. </p>
<p>I think maintaining and reinforcing these three areas of strength will probably help this software stay in the spotlight and set itself apart from the large variety of other multiphysics simulation platforms out there.</p>
<p>Regarding item a):</p>
<p>I think it's awesome that Scan and Solve is available as a plugin for Rhino3d. But immediately my mind jumps to Rhino's associated Grasshopper platform and I can't help but think the power users in this community would make tremendous use of SnS related grasshopper components.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Regarding item b):</p>
<p>I have nothing further to recommend here.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Regarding item c):</p>
<p>The meshfree uniform grid based underlying technology enables a variety of capabilities that are not possible or practical with current mainstream FEA platforms. Since this is such a key differentiating characteristic of SnS, I think it makes sense to allow more user control of the grid structure than the simple resolution slider that is currently present. I see that Matteo and Vadim discussed this back in August 2010 and I would look forward to any progress that might be on the horizon regarding additional sophisticated control over the grid mesh. However, in the mean time, would it be possible to unlock the x, y, and z direction mesh densities? I would imagine a lot of simulation problems could be characterized as being more 1.5D than 3D in nature. Or likewise, more 2.5D than full 3D. In these cases I would assume the user could benefit by applying more grid cells in one direction than another. I think this might unlock a substantially larger number of real world application examples for detailed FEA simulation, since the computer memory and processing time might be reduced by orders of magnitude.</p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<p></p> A few simple requests:tag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2015-12-22:6083097:Topic:442172015-12-22T14:47:44.464Zleslie dean brownhttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/LeslieDeanBrown
<ul>
<li>It would be nice to be able to use more elements (finer mesh). I just did an analysis with 200,000 elements. And in some of the more interesting places on my model, there is not as much detail as I'd like to see– because the part varies in thickness quite a lot. So on some areas, there are only two, three or four mesh elements. Which is not really that many when you have a stress gradient going across that boundary...</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>One thing I noticed when looking at my results…</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>It would be nice to be able to use more elements (finer mesh). I just did an analysis with 200,000 elements. And in some of the more interesting places on my model, there is not as much detail as I'd like to see– because the part varies in thickness quite a lot. So on some areas, there are only two, three or four mesh elements. Which is not really that many when you have a stress gradient going across that boundary...</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>One thing I noticed when looking at my results is that I use the X/Y/Z sectioning too quite often to see inside the object. It's very useful.<br/> <br/> I would like to be able to view other section profiles, not just these three simple planes.<br/> <br/> It's probably easier for me to explain this in crystallography terms. What you have now is basic 100, 010 and 001 planes parallel to the X, Y and Z axes.<br/> <br/> It would be nice to have 110, 101, 011 and 111 planes as well. In other words, some diagonals!</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Another wish of mine is that I can't zoom in and out when I am creating the loads and restraints or viewing the results. I can pan. I can change viewports. But I can't zoom. Unfortunately that's already becoming a bit annoying for me...</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>most of the figures in the html report are displayed like this: <br/><blockquote>1.6957E-001 mm.</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>I already know that that means 0.17mm. I don't know about engineers, but all scientists will tell you that we prefer the exponents to appear in multiples of three. It just makes it easier to read. <br/> <br/> I know that computers automatically spit out numbers with an 'e' in them, extra zeros and too many significant figures. But most humans would prefer to read either 0.17mm or even 1.7 x 10<sup>-1</sup> mm.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>No where near as big a deal as the other things I mentioned, but it would be nice to have a few other colour scales to choose from in the results. Some of the results are so pleasing to look at, visually speaking. My favourite is the second on the list. Can we have some more like that, with a posterised effect?</li>
</ul>
<p></p>
<p>[keep in mind that right now I am using the WIP and student versions, but I will most likely purchase the software some time next year]</p> Networked computers for faster results!tag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2015-12-22:6083097:Topic:440462015-12-22T10:24:02.631Zleslie dean brownhttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/LeslieDeanBrown
<p>I have access to two or three computers and they are sitting idle while I am waiting for the results to come in for my latest test.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Some customers probably have dozens or even hundred of computers on their local network, which would speed up the solving times <em>considerably</em>...</p>
<p></p>
<p>I know that other software companies have used networked computers for intense computations (rendering, etc). For example V-Ray offers that as does…</p>
<p>I have access to two or three computers and they are sitting idle while I am waiting for the results to come in for my latest test.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Some customers probably have dozens or even hundred of computers on their local network, which would speed up the solving times <em>considerably</em>...</p>
<p></p>
<p>I know that other software companies have used networked computers for intense computations (rendering, etc). For example V-Ray offers that as does Maxwell.</p>
<p></p>
<p>It might be feasible if the computations can be divided between computers. So I don't know if you could offer this in future for FEA?</p> Optimise geometrytag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2015-12-20:6083097:Topic:439572015-12-20T10:09:51.638Zleslie dean brownhttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/LeslieDeanBrown
<p>Firstly, I am amazed at how simple Scan and Solve is to use.</p>
<p>Well done on that front!</p>
<p></p>
<p>I would really love to see the ability to dynamically change the geometry over several iterations based on the FEA results I am seeing.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Some people are calling this "evolutionary topology". Others call it "structural optimisation". I first saw an example of this back in about 1999 and it blew me away...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Here are a few examples:…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Firstly, I am amazed at how simple Scan and Solve is to use.</p>
<p>Well done on that front!</p>
<p></p>
<p>I would really love to see the ability to dynamically change the geometry over several iterations based on the FEA results I am seeing.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Some people are calling this "evolutionary topology". Others call it "structural optimisation". I first saw an example of this back in about 1999 and it blew me away...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Here are a few examples:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPFFSpeNR9A">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPFFSpeNR9A</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gZokNyFe5s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gZokNyFe5s</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-DBpMKxKQc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-DBpMKxKQc</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xXrm-7C8bA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xXrm-7C8bA</a></p>
<p></p> FEA Results Domaintag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2014-10-16:6083097:Topic:423032014-10-16T12:30:45.447ZTom D.http://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/TomD
<p>Hello all,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am not sure if this is wish or just a topic for discussion, but here it is:</p>
<p></p>
<p>In recent checks I have done with SnS the graphical results have indicated that my parts are fine, but the reports aren't showing this as the maximum stress doesn't happen in the area I am studying, but at the edge constraints of the model.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I wonder if one could not implement a "InSolid" approach for the report where stresses, displacements, etc... are only…</p>
<p>Hello all,</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am not sure if this is wish or just a topic for discussion, but here it is:</p>
<p></p>
<p>In recent checks I have done with SnS the graphical results have indicated that my parts are fine, but the reports aren't showing this as the maximum stress doesn't happen in the area I am studying, but at the edge constraints of the model.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I wonder if one could not implement a "InSolid" approach for the report where stresses, displacements, etc... are only reported for the meshes inside a Rhino solid, which would allow one to disregard all the weird little stress concentrators that happen at the restraints. This would be for the report only.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p></p>
<p>BTW I am a huge fan of the mesh approach since our Rhino models aren't always perfectly closed. I can export the model to STL, use something like NetFab to repair the mesh where needed, then re-import the part into Rhino and run the analysis. Huge time saver compared to trying to get the Rhino models completely closed and "hole free"</p>
<p></p>
<p>Kind regards,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Tom</p> Small Wish: Time of runtag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2014-10-14:6083097:Topic:418972014-10-14T19:03:50.064ZTom D.http://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/TomD
<p>Hello:</p>
<p></p>
<p>I was trying to do some comparisons between 2 solvers - and trying to measure the time each run took. Problem is the only way I could find is using a stopwatch, since there is no way (that I can see) to measure how long each job takes. Of course I am never there when the run ends...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Having this information after each run would be very useful to plan runs. I also wonder if there isn't some way of doing some prediction based on the size of the model and the…</p>
<p>Hello:</p>
<p></p>
<p>I was trying to do some comparisons between 2 solvers - and trying to measure the time each run took. Problem is the only way I could find is using a stopwatch, since there is no way (that I can see) to measure how long each job takes. Of course I am never there when the run ends...</p>
<p></p>
<p>Having this information after each run would be very useful to plan runs. I also wonder if there isn't some way of doing some prediction based on the size of the model and the power of the CPU...</p>
<p></p>
<p>It this something you could add? Something as simple as "Calculation took 34 minutes 18 seconds)"</p>
<p></p>
<p>Kind regards,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Tom.</p> Multiple requeststag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2014-06-11:6083097:Topic:416012014-06-11T02:27:48.465ZHamish Stevenshttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/HamishStevens
<p>Just a few feature requests</p>
<p>Make a defaults option available e.g. Solver, material, result component, scale, legend etc. can all be set as a default, even maybe just and *.ini file or something in the program folder.</p>
<p>Legend extreme - I have seen several scale in other software where once it goes past the max specified on the scale it will then go to a different color again e.g. purple</p>
<p>Loading/restraint arrow size & density - These are often difficult to see and…</p>
<p>Just a few feature requests</p>
<p>Make a defaults option available e.g. Solver, material, result component, scale, legend etc. can all be set as a default, even maybe just and *.ini file or something in the program folder.</p>
<p>Legend extreme - I have seen several scale in other software where once it goes past the max specified on the scale it will then go to a different color again e.g. purple</p>
<p>Loading/restraint arrow size & density - These are often difficult to see and especially when taking screen captures to show how the model has been loaded/restrained. Some sort of scaling and density factors to fix this.</p>
<p>An additional unit system - kN/mm/MPa, this would be a bit more user friendly as it is very rare to have loads of less than 1kN.</p> Some directions for feature growthtag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2014-04-08:6083097:Topic:410662014-04-08T09:01:41.214ZStuart Friedberghttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/StuartFriedberg
<p>As the 2014 beta release approaches, I thought I'd throw out some ideas for future feature enhancement.</p>
<p>I attempted a small project unsucessfully with S&S recently. I was trying to find the static load capacity of a clamping shaft collar, which is a common mechanical component. To do this successfully, several additional features would be either very helpful or simply necessary.</p>
<p>The largest new feature would be support for assemblies of multiple parts in contact, where…</p>
<p>As the 2014 beta release approaches, I thought I'd throw out some ideas for future feature enhancement.</p>
<p>I attempted a small project unsucessfully with S&S recently. I was trying to find the static load capacity of a clamping shaft collar, which is a common mechanical component. To do this successfully, several additional features would be either very helpful or simply necessary.</p>
<p>The largest new feature would be support for assemblies of multiple parts in contact, where force is equalized at surfaces in contact. There are lots of cases where unifying multiple parts into a common solid just isn't appropriate. For just one simple example, consider two steel flanges separated by a "softer" gasket material. Even if assemblies are restricted to non-sliding or kinematically-restrained ones, it would be necessary in practice to "grow" the surface patches in contact due to elastic deformation. (And, obviously, be sensible about models whose surfaces interpenetrate slightly due to numerical approximations in the model geometry. Actually, I'm not sure how S&S would handle that with its grid-based approach.)</p>
<p>While clamping forces (e.g., due to a bolt) can often be modeled by a vector force (or an opposed pair of them), when the clamped surfaces are not in initial contact the force directions generally will change due to elastic deformation. A new opposed-force primitive load would be very helpful. Surface faces would be selected for each half of the load, and the force vectors would always be parallel to the line between the mean locations of the surfaces on each side.</p>
<p>It would be extremely useful to be able to use auxiliary geometry to "section" a model post-analysis to allow display of internal stresses. The existing axis-aligned sections are very handy, but don't allow for display of stress over a cylindrical surface, for example. (Internal stress in this context definitely includes stress at assembly surfaces in contact, but is not restricted to that.)</p>
<p>Together with arbitrary sections, the integration of stresses over some face(s) of the section surface is quite valuable. A limited version of this capability was in SnScript to approximate reaction forces, but if it's in the current WIP I can't find it.</p>
<p>Tools to analyze "interference fits" would be useful. The solids in an interference fit do not actually interpenetrate or interfere, because their free surfaces have been elastically deformed by each other. Engineering handbooks have tables of common cases, but a solution is sometimes needed for something other than a smooth round solid shaft in a smooth round bore. This is a particular case of support for assemblies.</p>
<p>Two long-standing desires deal with weldments. At the moment, I have to join all the pieces of a weldment into a single polysurface prior to S&S analysis. This is quite a lot of work, work which must be repeated over and over again as the weldment design evolves, and work which is not cost-effective to perform at a fully accurate level of modeling. It would be an immense time saver if a group of physically interpenetrating (poly) surfaces could be given to S&S, because the weld beads could be more quickly modeled (complete with accurate penetration) separately from the actual component parts of the weldment. That may not be readily apparent, but Rhino's (or any other CAD modeler's) limitations on boolean operations on very complex polysurface objects is a significant factor. My understanding of the S&S internals suggests using a group of object for input geometry should be relatively straightforward. Membership is trivial, and the boundary problem is immensely easier than solving for the NURBS surface of a boolean union. This is different from assemblies, as a single solid is being analyzed; it is just handed to S&S as an implicit union of multiple interpenetrating chunks of geometry.</p>
<p>The second feature related to weldments may have applications I haven't considered. Unless very expensive procedures are specified, every weld contains a stress riser. These show up in S&S analysis as points of infinite stress, and can make it difficult to evaluate analysis results for "real" problems. Some degree of support for plastic deformation, which would knock those virtual infinities down to real-world material values, would be beneficial. For my particular application, this need not be a full-on solver for plastic deformations!</p>
<p></p> Wish : Edit face to loadtag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2013-05-17:6083097:Topic:384782013-05-17T10:03:18.260ZOlivier Suirehttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/OlivierSuire
<p>If for some reason I alter the solid I have already loaded, there is a chance that the faces which I applied a force to will either disappear, or SNS will apply the force to another face because the face ID numbers have changed.</p>
<p>In that case, and even if one simply changes his mind about where to apply the load, it would be nice to be able to edit the faces instead of deleting the load, and re-defining it completely.</p>
<p>It is already possible to do this with the Axis for the…</p>
<p>If for some reason I alter the solid I have already loaded, there is a chance that the faces which I applied a force to will either disappear, or SNS will apply the force to another face because the face ID numbers have changed.</p>
<p>In that case, and even if one simply changes his mind about where to apply the load, it would be nice to be able to edit the faces instead of deleting the load, and re-defining it completely.</p>
<p>It is already possible to do this with the Axis for the torque load, so it could work in the same fashion for faces.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Olivier</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Wish : save constraint and load "scenarios"tag:www.scan-and-solve.com,2013-05-16:6083097:Topic:385782013-05-16T08:13:19.398ZOlivier Suirehttp://www.scan-and-solve.com/profile/OlivierSuire
<p>It would be nice to have an option to save constraint and load "scenarios" for the same solid so they can be retrieved easily.</p>
<p>Expanding on this, it would be possible to export an analysis report with results for the various "scenarios", and possibly a highlight on the "worse case scenario".</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Olivier</p>
<p>It would be nice to have an option to save constraint and load "scenarios" for the same solid so they can be retrieved easily.</p>
<p>Expanding on this, it would be possible to export an analysis report with results for the various "scenarios", and possibly a highlight on the "worse case scenario".</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Olivier</p>