4 ms·

No, that's backwards. Running a CFD simulation would involve a multi-year effort to re-educate yourself to learn how to build an accurate CFD model. Building a

by elil17 3y ago

No, that's backwards. Running a CFD simulation would involve a multi-year effort to re-educate yourself to learn how to build an accurate CFD model. Building a physical model, on the other hand, merely requires 3D printing the desired shape, doing some sort of casting process to get that out of metal, putting it on a boat, and seeing if you get a noticeable performance impact. It's one of these situations: https://xkcd.com/1425/ https://xkcd.com/1425/

DNF2 3y ago
How do you figure that, when the CFD software is already built and available, and the premise in the question is that that the asker is already in a position to start using it? It's pretty clear that the background of the asker is aligned with a software approach. > Building a physical model, on the other hand, merely requires 3D printing the desired shape, doing some sort of casting process to get that out of metal, putting it on a boat, and seeing if you get a noticeable performance impact. I love how you sneak the word "merely" in there, when for people like me, and presumably the asker, this would be a Herculean task :D
- elil17 3y ago
  >the premise in the question is that that the asker is already in a position to start using it That's an incorrect premise. The asker is clearly not in a position to use an off the shelf CFD package because they don't have the solid basis in fluid mechanics required to interpret the results. I think maybe you/the asker are thinking of CFD like a tool that simulates fluids. That's not what it is. It's a set of approximations which, sometimes, are applicable to specific circumstances. Even LES, the most general tractable model, requires you to make informed assumptions about the boundary conditions. > I love how you sneak the word "merely" in there, when for people like me, and presumably the asker, this would be a Herculean task I'm sure building a physical prop would be challenging if you had no experience, but it is the sort of thing a lot of people can learn from Youtube and do in their garage.

by elil17 3y ago

DNF2 3y ago

How do you figure that, when the CFD software is already built and available, and the premise in the question is that that the asker is already in a position to start using it? It's pretty clear that the background of the asker is aligned with a software approach. > Building a physical model, on the other hand, merely requires 3D printing the desired shape, doing some sort of casting process to get that out of metal, putting it on a boat, and seeing if you get a noticeable performance impact. I love how you sneak the word "merely" in there, when for people like me, and presumably the asker, this would be a Herculean task :D

elil17 3y ago
>the premise in the question is that that the asker is already in a position to start using it That's an incorrect premise. The asker is clearly not in a position to use an off the shelf CFD package because they don't have the solid basis in fluid mechanics required to interpret the results. I think maybe you/the asker are thinking of CFD like a tool that simulates fluids. That's not what it is. It's a set of approximations which, sometimes, are applicable to specific circumstances. Even LES, the most general tractable model, requires you to make informed assumptions about the boundary conditions. > I love how you sneak the word "merely" in there, when for people like me, and presumably the asker, this would be a Herculean task I'm sure building a physical prop would be challenging if you had no experience, but it is the sort of thing a lot of people can learn from Youtube and do in their garage.