The comparison of CST with XFDTD
How do you compare CST to XFDTD, other than the excellent user interface of Microwave studio, is there something better in XFDTD?
Best Regards,
Adel
I think xFDTD is faster, probably because the problems xFDTD can handle is less complicated.
I thing CST best for user interface, but for the simulation results accuracy I thing 90%. XFDTD now I lookong for trial demo.
Kindly.
Maybe also have a look at semcad (www.semcad.com).
It might outperform even both ... from a speed and handling point of view.
Originally coming from CST and also having worked with XFDTD, I finally decided for SEMCAD.
If you had a look at it, let me know what you think ...
BR
/N
The accuracy of CST is more than that of xfdtd
I have seen problems that can be simulated with XFDTD (6.1 and earlier) but not CST MWStudio mainly because the latter requires higher computing power. On the other hand, there are many other problems that can be easily handled in CST but not with XFDTD mostly because the limited number of excitation schemes in XFDTD (6.1 and earlier). For those "common" problems, both have similar accuracy.
Haven't got chance to test drive xfdtd6.2 & 6.3 yet. There might be some improvement with respect to the excitation scheme.
Xfdtd is most suitable for open boundary problems.
cst is best for closed boundary problem.
both of them are very good in there own domain.
it is your application which would decide about the usage.
hock
PS dose some one has access to Xfstd 6.2 or 6.3?
How can you justify this? they both use similar pml formulations. I have used both CST and xfdtd for antenna analysis and found them to be as accurate as each other (CST solved quicker though).
Also bear in mind CST is not just an time domain solver, it has a frequency domain (tet and hex mesh), eigen mode, mor and mom solvers, so there is pretty much any kind of solver you could need for any problem.
As usual I would suggest it comes down to your budget and choice of UI, in terms of accuracy there is very little difference.
this is what is my experience with the tools.
you can have your opinion. both of us are right. as both of them can do all the things.
but in my case i needed to have a open boundary EM analysis for which XFDTD algorithm was more suitable.
hock
A great shortcoming of XFDTD6, you cannot draw a 3D antenna farfield radiation pattern. It can only draw a 2D pattern.
upto my expereince XFDTD
1) Interface not as good as cst
2) Very fast as compared with CST
3) You really need to know EM for simulation
Regards
Hi all,
I agree full with 'DrNiiken'! We are a research center and in the past we had experience with CST and XFDTD; but finally for our research purposes we use SEMCAD 64 bit on a dual Opteron and 8GB Ram. The ADI solver for low freqency problems is great! Then for biological applications they have also a Pennes thermo solver for coupling electric with thermal problems (eg. human head heated by rf from a mobile phone).
And at last but not least the support team is competent, amazing fast and verry friendly!
best: Ricy
hi,anyone has the manul about xfdtd in chinese?
can you send me a copy ?thank you .
Does anyone know if the latest version of Semcad can handle charged conductors (i.e., an initial DC voltage can be specified), and switches which can change state during the simulation?
Xfdtd can do this but the user interface is cumbersome and annoying, IMO.
I think cst microwave studio which is based on finite integration method is better that xfdtd. The former can mesh the structure in nonuniform way which can save a lot of computer resource and time with the same accuracy with that using xfdtd.
Dear all,
recently I have been working on simulations of Through the Wall radar scenarios in CST (simulations of room with objects like pieces of furniture and human body phantoms inside, plus some radar structures outside the wall; these simulations must be performed at UWB frequencies like 1-5GHz).
My license for CST is going to expire soon and we were thinking if it is worth renewing it or switching to xFDTD.
Any good piece of advice is more than welcomed.
Thanks
Daer all
thera are difference between them xfdtd depend on numerical technique differ from the tchnique used for cst .cst depend on integral equation but xfdtd depend on fdtd method so thera are many problem solved better in fdtd and there are others solved in integral equation and if u want to work with xfdt and get accurate result u must know about fdtd method but in cst u can work without knoweing about integral equation and the speed of them depend on number of cell u add in two programm
Best Regard
eng ahmed
Note that CST has both time domain solver and frequency domain solver. so it is true that "cst depend on integral equation", but it is true to say that CST depends ONLY on integral equation.