Sep 27, 2010 #1 G GKG Newbie level 5 Joined Sep 24, 2010 Messages 8 Helped 2 Reputation 4 Reaction score 2 Trophy points 1,283 Activity points 1,333 from CST MWS and HFSS, which tool is better for full wave simulation of a planar structure ?
Sep 28, 2010 #2 A Azulykit Advanced Member level 4 Joined Feb 18, 2007 Messages 1,140 Helped 224 Reputation 446 Reaction score 116 Trophy points 1,343 Location All over the Map. Activity points 8,630 debating "better" just starts a never ending street fight. I think of this as a "Good, Fast, Cheap" ....... pick any two debate, The "better" software is the one you have and know how to operate.
debating "better" just starts a never ending street fight. I think of this as a "Good, Fast, Cheap" ....... pick any two debate, The "better" software is the one you have and know how to operate.
Sep 29, 2010 #3 P per_lube Advanced Member level 4 Joined Sep 29, 2010 Messages 107 Helped 17 Reputation 34 Reaction score 17 Trophy points 1,298 Activity points 2,120 according to my experience HFSS is better in speed than CST MWS when simulating planar structures.
Sep 30, 2010 #4 A adel_48 Full Member level 6 Joined Dec 17, 2003 Messages 330 Helped 62 Reputation 122 Reaction score 26 Trophy points 1,308 Activity points 3,134 per_lube said: according to my experience HFSS is better in speed than CST MWS when simulating planar structures. Click to expand... I agree. I use HFSS and I am getting pretty good results compared to measurements for planar antennas. I think CST/SEMCAD is better when your structure is electrically large since FDTD (CST,SEMCAD) does not require as much RAM as FEM (HFSS). Adel
per_lube said: according to my experience HFSS is better in speed than CST MWS when simulating planar structures. Click to expand... I agree. I use HFSS and I am getting pretty good results compared to measurements for planar antennas. I think CST/SEMCAD is better when your structure is electrically large since FDTD (CST,SEMCAD) does not require as much RAM as FEM (HFSS). Adel