Which one is better, HFSS or CST ?

2 ridge horn antenna

eirp said:

This is the layout of the antenna.

Click to expand...

hi\do you have hfss or cst file of double ridge horn antenna?

i want that for my lesson to get 5 mark!!

Re: H F S S vs C S T

Could someone update this thread? I noticed this thread has been started years ago, and what thing were back then may not be what thing are right now... How does H F S S and C S T fare against each other nowadays?

Re: H F S S vs C S T

For filter simulation, the work I mostly do. I think for 2 port, cst is better in convergency and memory cosuming. For multiport, HFSS is much better. CST is too slow to simulate the ports using Transient Solver. But you can use the network computing....
I only use cst 5.1.3 and hfss 12.1. For eigen mode ,I prefer cst!! For ordinary two cavity coupling calculation ,cst is good.

Re: H F S S vs C S T

CST 2010
I now greatly much make calculations on HFSS 12.1 and duplicate up them on CST2010. I want to gather cluster for HFSS12 and CST2010 - 10-16 syst. the blocks (i7/8Gb/SSD), connected along the network of 10Gigabit. did make someone cluster for HFSS12 and CST2010? It is necessary to verify [soft] although on 2-3 PCs before brother for entire cluster. I will verify to 2-3, and it is more - it is problematic, and it is desirable 10-16 PCs to connect. And generally how much can this [soft] support PCs. In HFSS10 - they indicated 10[sht]., in the advertisement HFSS12 - 16[sht], they write that for each necessary to pay separately): this regime is called for HFSS12.1 - Distributed Of analysis on of 10-16 comp- s for CST2010 - Distributed Of computing on of 10-16 PC- s if someone it stayed this regime, write
PM , please !

Re: H F S S vs C S T

Quad9550, 3.15 ГГц, 8 ГБ, неSSD, W7x64, CST-SP5



To me it is interesting to know: actually whether in i7 and Xeon productivity in CST is considerably higher than in Quad. Indeed in Xeon, as a rule, and frequency is below, and it does not be subject to acceleration.

Why has this thread stopped? CST and HFSS are still relevant and changing. How do you think they're both doing?

I've been able to use both programs over my career and each have their strengths and weaknesses but one thing I didn't like about HFSS is they penalize you for using a powerful computer by adding an extra charge for multicore processors. If you don't use such a processor then the simulations can take quite a while.

For planar structures, like with PCB, I have recently started using Simbeor and I must admit that is quite impressive. The sims are very fast and measured data matches almost exact to the simulations so far.