Mica188 said:Hi,
I have read some threads in this forum and I found some criteria for the choice of a software.
Mica
itaifrenkel said:asdfaaa ,
I disagree with some of your statements.
HFSS is much faster when accuracy is needed. The FDTD solvers have hard time refining their mesh and CONTROLLING the accuracy of the solution. So, if you intend to use (fast) time domain as a less accurate solver, you should add to the simulation time the time you intend to spend in the lab tuning your device. Accuracy control is a time saver. In HFSS you can choose to start solve a fast but less accurate solution, and then choose to solve it accuratly.
Second, HFSS has interpolating and fast sweeps which eliminate the need of solving each frequency point. Both broadband and shortband sweeps are done in an efficient manner.
Now - as for the time domain conversion being slower ....
Let us take a signal integrity problem such as a pulse entering a via. When you use a time domain solver and you need to co-simulate between the spice and the FDTD solver. Each time you cahnge the pulse shape you need to re-run the FDTD simulation !!!. That is unless you convert the time domain results into s-parameters (freq. domain) and then convert them back to time domain in spice.
HFSS creates directly the S-parameters, and it comes with a parametric model export into the circuit simulator. In addition, the circuit simulator can ask HFSS to solve a new variation if you do not want to interpolate between results. Furthermore, this circuit simulator is optimized for large s-matrices. There is no competition here.
I know of only one application that one might choose FDTD over HFSS, and that is if one must plot the fields in time domain.
Just another comment on Q3D. As long as the model is much smaller than the wavelength of the highest frequency it will be accurate. In the current version though, L is not frequency dependent and it does not calculate g (dielectric losses).
Mica188, what is the application you are looking a simulator for ?
Regards,
Itai
RFSimulator said:Hi,
CST does support parallel Processing for CPU's on the same mainboard. You can select the numbers of Processors you would like to use in the solver special settings if you have the appropriate license. I personaly use a double processor XEON system.
It also does support parallel computing for several ports in a network
Howerver CST does not support parallel processing in a computer cluster. I would guess that this is more a question of the implementation and not a question if is is possible
Best regards,
F.
itaifrenkel said:RFSimulator,
I must admit that MWS gained some market share because it released earlier a slicker UI, but since HFSS v9 I believe MWS is inferior.
Itai
Mica188 said:Hi,
Thanks for the explaination, very clear.
Right now, I'm in a learning curve. So, the first step is playing around with antenna parameters and analyse what'a can these softwares can provide. My real problem is to simulate the whole antenna system. Maybe one software will not do all but I want to limite software and the cost too. What I want to do is :
1) I can change the pulse shape easily and see the different effects related to this change,
2) Output data easy to manipulate, or moreover, a user friendly interface which gives me all the parameters plots of an antenna. In Far field plot not only Gain and directivity but also, the electromagnetic field plot.
Is it interessting you have mentionne fields plot in time domain, what is the utility of this plot? Can you explain more?
As I mentionne in the previous message, I'm using a demo version of SuperNec. I have 3 softwares I mind which are SuperNec , HFSS and XFDTD , XGTD from Remcom. Can you tell me the pros and cons of these softwares ?
Thanks for your time,
Mica
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?