Note: This discussion is about an older version of the COMSOL Multiphysics® software. The information provided may be out of date.
Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.
backward compatibility of version 4.1
Posted 4 janv. 2011, 16:03 UTC−5 Version 4.1 1 Reply
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Hi, I am trying to test the new version 4.1 by running a model originally solved by the old version 3.5a. The file was opened sucessfully in version 4.1. However, when I tried to solve the problem, it took much much longer time using version 4.1. Do I need to make any modification before running a old model using new comsol 4.1?
1 Reply Last Post 5 janv. 2011, 01:39 UTC−5
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
there are many small changes and improvements between these versions, and a direct translation is not always possible.
Personally I have given up "translating". I import at best the geoemtry ans a binary file (if I do not reconstruct it) and then I rebuild the model from scratch, mostly by analysing what the 3.5 translator is proposing and learning the new approach. many elements of the translation is in fact not required or can be done in a simpler way.
In anycase a matlab file model will imply quite sm rewriting.
Then finally I compare, apart from CFD cases I see little differences, mosty an improved model build time, a far greater ease to mesh and remeshk, and with 4.1 more possibilities to postprocess. Celar I'm still waiting for some missing 3.5 features such as reporting etc.
--
Good luck
Ivar
there are many small changes and improvements between these versions, and a direct translation is not always possible.
Personally I have given up "translating". I import at best the geoemtry ans a binary file (if I do not reconstruct it) and then I rebuild the model from scratch, mostly by analysing what the 3.5 translator is proposing and learning the new approach. many elements of the translation is in fact not required or can be done in a simpler way.
In anycase a matlab file model will imply quite sm rewriting.
Then finally I compare, apart from CFD cases I see little differences, mosty an improved model build time, a far greater ease to mesh and remeshk, and with 4.1 more possibilities to postprocess. Celar I'm still waiting for some missing 3.5 features such as reporting etc.
--
Good luck
Ivar