|
Excellent thread. I started modeling my 02 Tundra. Coarse grained with overall dimensions and major surfaces was pretty fast and easy. Good enough for checking driver visibility of camper designs and refining window size and location for example. Fine grained details get exponentially time consuming though. Geometry requirements for reasonable CFD results may limit practicality or cost effectiveness, at least in 3D. In 2D things are much easier, which makes me wonder about the possibilities of doing 2D analysis in orthographic views (top, side, end) then intersecting results. In a really crude way this principal is what makes MRI and CT scans go. I wouldn't expect 2.5-D analysis to be as good as 3D but I can't help but wonder how helpful it might be...
Cheers
KB
|