AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Cst microwave studio software2/15/2024 If you have a wideband structure, don't use HFSS or CST's frequency domain solver. If you have a high-Q structure, don't use CST's time domain solver. HFSS is much easier to mesh with the automatic refinement, but can generate huge meshes. Of course, you have to know what you're doing sometimes - from experience, using a stripline feed not quite aligned with other geometric features can take a while to get meshed correctly, often done manually. It's easier to do finer/variable meshing for particular parts of the model than in HFSS. Since it's broadband it will make a good comparison between FD and TD solvers.Īlong the lines of the previous post, CST gives you more control over meshing. Now that I have access to both I want to try a log-periodic dipole array I designed in HFSS and measured. All three agreed well but the CST TD solver was faster with less memory I don't have specific numbers. When evaluating CST for purchase I gave them a patch antenna design that I simulated in HFSS and measured. I prefer CST (we recently purchased it) since I can choose between TD and FD solvers. This is only one type of problem so you can't conclude one is better than the other. The error curves for the CST solvers are smooth and monotonically decreasing. The error for HFSS looks good at 100 seconds, however as mesh density (and analysis time) increase the error diverges. If you skip to the last page in the spreadsheet you will see a comparison between HFSS and CST (both FD and TD solvers). I never did post the updated version with CST so here it is: Which is better in discontinuously hfss or cstĪ couple of years ago I posted stripline benchmark results to compare 2.5D and 3D tools.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |