Continue to Site

Which one is better, HFSS or CST ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But anybody have the good experience with CST-MWS eigenmode solver to solve the strong resonant problem? IMHO the CST-MWS's modal analysis must be a more accurate for this type of problem.

Best regards,
Kit-the-great
 

hfss vs. mws

Hi Kitty,

I have tried mws seigenmode solver many times plus the modal analysis to generate s-parameters but results were quite wrong. Instead, I'd advise you to go for HFSS fast sweep, narrow band. To my opinion results are pretty good.
Besides, the MWS eigenmode solver needs a lot of time to solve for the eigenvectors and then to calculate the modes.

best regards,

cheng

P.S I have' not tried mws eigenmode for simple cavities - it may well work there. I was trying with combline and dielectric resonator filters and it failed. Even the support staff gave it up....
 

The CST's design studio is quiet well.

The interface of the HFSS is waste time.
 

CST / HFSS

I don't have enough time to read all the comments on the argument, but I'd like to tell my opinion, so probably I'll reply concept mentioned yet.

In my experience I have found that CST is easiet and faster to use than HFSS, but it's not as accurate as HFSS.

However I'd like to underline that, from my personal point of view, CST is more adequate for "radiating problems" (as antennas) and HFSS is more adequate for "passive circuit" (as filter, coupler and so on).

In conclusion I have found that the idea to open a forum on electromagnetic simulator is a very good idea. It could be used to share projects, usefull informations, macros and tricks to improve our control on these software.
 

I have made a project with ADS-Momentum and Ansoft Designer.
I assume that didn't any mistake. Only frequency axis is shifted.

**broken link removed**
**broken link removed**
**broken link removed**
 

CST / HFSS

I suppose that these differences are due to the accuracy of the solution, it isn't a simple frequency shift.
 

Does anyone know if hf*ss 8.0 supports any kind of script?
I should simulate about 1000 capacitors with different dielectics, so I'd like to know if with hfss8 I'll be able to do it in automatic way...

Thank you and Bye All!
 

The question basically boils down to the fundamental difference between the Frequency Domain FEM (HFSS) and the Time Domain Finite Difference (MWS) methods. We know that FEM is good for arbitrary inhomogeniety, while FDTD is good for obtaining wide-band result.

Can either of these completely replace the other? NO. There is no point in defacing any of these tools.
 

wolf69,

HFSS does support scripting.
 

wolf69,

HF$$ has extensive support for scripting.
 

Hello loucy !

loucy wrote:
The question basically boils down to the fundamental difference between the Frequency Domain FEM (HFSS) and the Time Domain Finite Difference (MWS) methods. We know that FEM is good for arbitrary inhomogeniety, while FDTD is good for obtaining wide-band result.

Can either of these completely replace the other? NO. There is no point in defacing any of these tools.
Click to expand...

But the MWS also have the frequency domain solver. In this limits: what solver the best ? Do You have a correct comparision between HFSS and MWS FD solvers ? I'm, personally, never use the MWS FD solver, but maybe anybody have the comparision results between this two solvers?

Best regards,
Kit-the-great
 

Hi, all!

This is also to show why I love M/W/S :)
My friend has designed Double Ridged Horn antenna (similar to Vivaldi) in M/W/S.
This was the hardest task which we ever simulated. 6 millions of cells and complicated transition between coaxial feeder and H-waveguide which feeds the Double Ridged Horn; transition has also tuning stubs.
Simulation has been done at PC with 1.5GB of RAM and here are some results compared to measured data.
Note that antenna was slightly detuned compared to simulation setup becuase of achieving higher upper frequency range. I suppose that good fit can be more improved.
I will provide far-field comparison also..
Regards,
Eirp
 

Post subject: H F S S vs C S T

i find the CST easier and faster than HFSS.
 

hfss vs cst

I often use the two software ,hfss is slower than cst! But I cannot compute the near field in cst,for example ,the reflection coefficient of fss,the reflection phase of high impedance surface ! Please help me!
 

mwpro said:
wolf69,

HF$$ has extensive support for scripting.
Click to expand...

They do, but, aren't they are abandoning their scripting language for VB in v9? As someone who typically uses it in the Unix environment, this was of particular interest...
 

Hi Gakusei
Can you tell me how to design a coaxial filter with cst?
regards
 

Re: H F S S vs C S T

CST is much easier to use thank HFSS, and much powerful, althogh, HFSS is also excellent.
 

Re: H F S S vs C S T

Hello All
who can tell me at final , which is better to work , HFSS or CST ?

thanks
 

Re: H F S S vs C S T

I worked with HFSS and CST.
And I had many problem's with CST and solve them only after much addition mesh cells.
I think that in CST is not very good automeshing.
Many problem your need to solve by hands and head :) .
For large devices, with not very complicated structure, CST works good.
But if you have large difference between elements dimensions and your device also very resonance structure, you must make mesh refinement by hands and you have huge size mesh cells.
In HFSS the mesh's refinement is the better And for resonance devices I had more good results.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top