What's a good fluid/air dynamics simulator that actually allows a fair amount of user control over what is being simulated?
All I'm able to find are tools that are very efficient but can only do stuff like show the airflow around a wing specified with a few parameters, as opposed to something like a 3D model with moving parts that moves around with the push of the air.
Doesn't need to be in real time of course, since that's rather unrealistic.
>>54743749
flow3d
>>54743749
SimplePlanes?
>>54743772
Does it just model how the object affects the air, or can it model how the air affects the object too?
>>54743804
That can't work with more complicated air phenomena. Like, you couldn't make an ectoplane in it for example.
>>54743749
Cats are fucking cute.
Literally any general 3D CFD software.
I use ANSYS CFX since I mainly do turbomachinery work.
ANSYS Fluent is a more general 3D code. There are other codes as well, like Star-CCM and NUMECA.
If you want to model the components moving under aerodynamic load, you're looking at what's known as fluid-structure interaction. You need to couple your fluid model to a finite-element structural model. In ANSYS, you can couple ANSYS Mechanical to both CFX and Fluent: last time I used it, of would only allow one-way FSI (ie you can pass the aero loads from CFX to Mechanical to see the deformation and stresses, but can't pass the new geometry back to CFX to see how the aerodynamics changes). However, Fluent to Mechanical is full two-way FSI and you can repeat ad nauseum until you converge on a solution or you get bored.
Fair warning: the learning curve for this stuff is pretty steep.
>>54744124
A little clarification because I messed up.
CFX to Mechanical is one-way FSI.
Fluent to Mechanical is two-way FSI.
Space Station 13
Colored dye and a tank of water
>>54744124
What should I use if I want to model something with powered flight, but it's small and strong enough that deformation and stresses are negligible?
>>54744308
Well, what do you want to use it for? Sounds like some kind of model aircraft?
If you don't need to look at deformation, then you don't need to model "parts that move aroind with the air". Moving parts in a CFD model, especially for airfoils, is a nightmare. You want to do a number of steady-state simulations with different shapes. Treat your aircraft as stationairy and estimate the wind speed around it, like it was in a wind-tunnel.
All of the codes work much the same way, though, so should you choose to get into it, then the software brand doesn't matter so much. A lot of people use Fluent; it's more general than CFX and you can do 2D simulation in it too.
But yeah, steep learning curve. You need a background in engineering and aerodynamics to understand what you're looking at. And really, if you're building something, you'd be better off with a textbook on aerodynamics and design everything based on hand-calculation and NACA tables like the good old days.
