MSC.FEA and NEiNastran 2

[ThomasH]

Let's say that you were given a choice beetween the two.

Or more precicely how does Patran compare to Femap?

I have used Femap för more than ten years but have now been given a choice. My problem that I'm not convinced that Patran is better so why should I swap. I'm not saying Patran is bad but will it make me a better engineer or will it just give my computerscreen a new look. Is it worth learning Patran when you know Femap?

Any input is welcome

Thomas

 

[johnhors]

Can you get a trial of Patran ? As you will get opinions here, one way or the other, but they are only opinions. Perhaps you should ask yourself "what do I expect to get out of a pre and post processor?" and only by comparing both yourself can you decide which best suits your requirements. I have no doubt what your decision will be, but then that's just my opinion.

 

[ThomasH]

johnhors:

I agree with everything you say. It's all opinions. And I would value yours.

The reason for my question is this. I have for the past ten years (or something like that) been working with MSC.Nastran for Windows, N4W,(MSC.Nastran with Femap) and been happy with that solution. As you might know UGS have now terminated the OEM agreement with MSC.Software so N4W no longer exists. That means that if I want to stick with Femap I probably need to do something on the solver side and if I want to stick with MSC.Nastran I can get MSC.Patran. There ar other combinations as well but I'll keep it "simple".

I far as I know Patran is not bad but like I said I'm happy with Femap. So is Patran so much better than Femap that learning it is worth the effort?

Like you say, I will only get opinions but that is exactly what I'm looking for. I will obviously test it before I make any final decision.

Regards

Thomas

 

[rb1957]

if you're happy with FEMAP, why change ? it'll take quite some time to adapt to the new grammar/lexicon. is there something you think you're missing in FEMAP.

i use FEMAP now, i've used PATRAN (years, literally decades, ago), and i was sitting with someone driving it recently ... i was very impressed by the user's memory skills (navigating PATRAN's "menu" system).

 

[crisb]

Is licensing Femap from UGS, and the Nastran solver from MSC an option, or would that be too expensive?

Or could you use your existing Femap setup without maintenance and upgrades whilst continuing with the MSC solver until MSC get their act together on the pre/post?

Just curious?

 

[johnhors]

Well Thomas, you asked for it, IMHO Patran is well, well past its sell by date, its heyday was in the time of mainframe computers and tektronix storage scope graphics screens and command line driven (remember the noodl rule!) Its migration to windows has always been much buggier than the unix version. It is unbelievably cumbersome and awkward to perform actions that are simple in other pre and post processors, crashes very frequently, suffers from "mesh insanity" on a regular basis, some of it's most useful options/tools can be found under the so called user developed pcl functions lists for which MSC offers no support. I believe that it passes suspect data to the OpenGL command library, as I cannot think of any other explanation for it's sometimes bizarre graphics behaviour, as other graphically intensive applications have no trouble on the same machine. It has always struggled with complex 3D solids and MSC has been quick to blame the CAD data in the past, however the same CAD models would import flawlessly into other FE softwares! It simply does not stand up to competition from other modern software developed specifically for the windows OS, and MSC is more than aware of this fact, which is why they have 300 programmers developing a totally new windows native pre and post processor in Bangalore.

Cris - UGS are offering MSC N4W users a straightforward jump ship to their NX/Nastran solver with Femap, so it does not make sense to use Femap with MSC/Nastran, the other alternative is NE/Nastran with Femap.

However there are other native windows pre and post processors that work exceptionally well with MSC/Nastran to choose from.

 

[fkmeyers]

I have used Patran extensively in the past and was even instrumental in the development of Patran 3 in the late 1980s, the first version of the Patran version you are talking about. This product is at the end of its life. Switching to it would be a huge step backwards. Yes, it does do some things better than FEMAP but overall FEMAP is a better choice. Like rb1957 is saying, if you are happy then why change? I can tell you that you will be in for a lot of learning. The Patran training class at my company is done over a 5 week period, 3x per week, 3 hours per day. The FEMAP training took 2 days at 8 hours per day.

 

[Hansmeister]

Recently, I was faced with a similar choice. I made the decision to jump ship completely, and am now working with Strand 7 FEA software. The initial learning curve was a little steep, but they have fantastic technical support.

I am now getting quality results with a very nice package.

 

[GregLocock]

Surely it's easier to change solvers than change pre and post processors?

Patran seemed to me to be both evil and incomprehensible. There again I didn't have any training in it. There again I didn't /need/ training to get useful results out of FEMAP or Hypermesh or, spit, IDEAS.


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[ThomasH]

Thank you all.

This is exactly the kind of input I was hoping for. Opinions.

My own question has so far been, I'm happy with Femap so why change? The reason that I asked is that some people think I should change based on the fact that they no longer can provide me with Femap, only Patran.

But I will take a look at Patran. The main reason is that I'm by nature very curious.

Any further comments are also welcome.

Thomas

 

[tstanley]

Hi Thomas

I've been watching your various postings with interest because I was in the same situation. I took the plunge and opted for Patran and am just now getting going. I'm not sorry for doing it. For me their were good reasons for going the Patran route. I ended up with quite a bit more capabilities and financially it made sense.

For example, Patran has a solid wedge element that Femap lacks. It allows upgrading to Laminate Modeller in the future on an on demand basis. The Femap alternative to that is anaglyph which was expensive for me to purchase outright and lacks some of the features of laminate modeller. Sure Patran is more clunky but software evolves (remember those 300 guys in Bangalore). The clunkiness seems to make it actually more transparent to what is actually going on. In any case, fea is not really a production type software where the number of mouse clicks is determining productivity.

This is not the first time this sort of situation existed. In the old days there was MSC Pal2 that got dropped. At that time I switched for a while then came back when MSC got Femap. I believe in today's world MSC will have to have a good Windows product or be faced with a very limited market for their products. By staying with MSC you will be able to migrate.

Tom Stanley

 

[fkmeyers]

Hi Tom,

I still feel Patran is a dead product. It needs a complete redesign. How many undo levels does Patran have? FEMAP is unlimited. How does MSC plan to enhance and modernize Patran in the future when they are pushing Sofy as their premier pre and post processor.

You can get Laminate Tools from NEi (Noran) for about the cost of FEMAP. Also, FEMAP does handle wedge or pent elements. These are not particularly good elements in any FEA code so I would not want to mesh with them over HEX8 or TET10 elements.

MSC is a sinking ship and I do not see how they can recover at this point. I feel that learning Patran at this point would be counter productive.

 

[johnhors]

Also Tom, the "M" in MSC used to stand for MacNeal, who now markets his own version of Nastran using a pre and post processor called Venus in direct competition to his former company that still bears his initial (see

http://www.themacnealgroup.com).

That should set the alarm bells ringing!

 

[GregLocock]

I don't think MSC is a sinking ship, they have a stranglehold on the automotive industry. Um, well, maybe that wasn't such a good strategy!

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[tstanley]

I didn't mean to start a battle; just to point out that there could be reasons for going with Patran. It's always a gamble switching software, whatever it is. Our engineering department at my day job switched to Microstation just before 3D cad became popular. Our analyst had nothing but problems cleaning up the geometry after bringing it in to N4W. A terrible mistake we are living with today.

I know from these forums that NEi gets great reviews and gives good support. For some people, especially those that let their maintenance expire on N4W, that may be the best option. However, in my case, financially that would not be viable. If MSC dies, then another decision would have to be made and be evaluated at that time. I think its a bit early to write them off though. Going back to the automotive analogy, Chrysler's fortunes have gone up and down over the years and the ownership has changed, but they still make cars.

I'm still interested in what Thomas' final decision is and how it works out for him.

Tom Stanley

 

[ThomasH]

Tom:

First of all, thanks for your input. If everybody liked Femap it wouldn't be much of a discussion.

The reason for your going with Patran, if I understand you correctly, was to a large extent financial. Based on technical merit only, would you say that Patran is better than Femap?

Regards

Thomas

 

[tstanley]

The primary reason was financial, although presumably I could have gone with NX for about the same price. On the technical side the N4W that I had was pretty basic, more basic than Patran can go probably. Therefore I gained capabilities that I didn't have before, like contact etc. that I would have had to pay a lot (to me) more for.

While I do use it at my day job, This is my own personal copy for my own interests, composites and other boat racing stuff.

http://members.axion.net/~tstanley/

Therefore the money is coming out of my own pocket.

I've done a couple of Patran models now, ones that were similar to ones done previously in N4W. It is different, but the results seem OK. There are a bunch of examples on the MSC web site to learn from, that are better than the help files.

I never did find the pent elements in femap, not that I want to use them everywhere. In particular the model was of a unit cell of a woven ply in a laminate. Using mainly hex and some tet elements left some free edges that could have been eliminated by using one or two wedge elements.

From a financial point of view, I had been looking at anaglyph (the laminate software) and couldn't justify to myself buying it outright to go with N4W, but it seemed possible that I could perhaps get work that would justify a short term lease of laminate modeler. Laminate modeler requires Patran though, and wouldn't work with N4W as far as I know.

All in all, I tried to evaluate the gain in capabilities with the expected loss of user friendliness and balance it with the money that I could afford.

Tom Stanley

 

[ThomasH]

Tom

I understand your reasons for going with MSC.FEA.

I will probably not go that way for several reasons.

It doesn't add any capabilities that I need. At least not for a resonable price.

You mentioned "300 guys in Bangalore". The problem is that I don't see that as only positive. Say that I learn Patran, will Patran "evolve" so much that it becomes in fact a new software? I don't mind learning new things but Patran today seems very uncertain. But I will have a look at it before my final decision.

There is also the fact that I have some API-programs written for Femap. Swapping to Patran means rewriting, again I don't get any more capabilities but it will take work to make Patran do what Femap already does for me.

But I will let you know what the final decision is if you are interested. It will be part technical and part financial.

Regards

Thomas