Flow Illustrator Stand Alone Version (Windows Only)

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

Then it's really just a pretty picture, isn't it?

For 99.9% of the population of the earth I would say yes, its just a pretty picture. For people who have 20 years experience in operating and doing tests in a wind tunnel and access to the source code it might be of some limited use.

[Sven7]

Are you saying the screenshots we're taking essentially mean nothing? If it's "just a pretty picture" then why do we see predictable results with different shapes? Seems to me it's better than nothing.

[ConnClark]

You can get predictable and repeatable results but they are unlikely to represent anything like the real world. I put up a thread on MicroCFD. Using that it gives you drag and even lift calculations. It also allows you to scale your object to the correct size. I plots pressure, vorticity, temp, and can plot stream lines.

Note its not free but it has a free 3 day trial. You can work around that if so desired.

[CigaR007]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Looking at the upper backlight wing,is it projecting above the roofline? It looks like it is.If so,it would be tripping flow separation and frustrating the ability for the air to 'jump' to the rear spoiler.

Here is the original bmp image.


I believe you are right. The wing is slightly projecting above the roofline. I will fix it.

[Sven7]

I made some templates for public use including most modern Civics. Maybe the OP would be kind enough to edit this link into the first post?

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tes-19728.html

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by Sven7

Are you saying the screenshots we're taking essentially mean nothing? If it's "just a pretty picture" then why do we see predictable results with different shapes? Seems to me it's better than nothing.

I wasn't trying to diss the original post. I appreciate it. I thanked the original post too. I am not trying to dampen anyone's enthusiasm. I take ConnClark's point about training, and I don't mind admitting again that I have none. I respect the training you all have. I'm asking questions of it. Even with training, how do you judge the usefulness of the visualized data? How do you set up reasonable parameters for the simulation? If there is no standard for converting these velocity and viscosity figures into "real world" numbers don't you have to wonder about confirmation bias in judgements about what flow simulation looks correct? What would you say the tool teaches best?

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

I wasn't trying to diss the original post. I appreciate it. I thanked the original post too. I am not trying to dampen anyone's enthusiasm. I take ConnClark's point about training, and I don't mind admitting again that I have none. I respect the training you all have. I'm asking questions of it. Even with training, how do you judge the usefulness of the visualized data? How do you set up reasonable parameters for the simulation? If there is no standard for converting these velocity and viscosity figures into "real world" numbers don't you have to wonder about confirmation bias in judgements about what flow simulation looks correct? What would you say the tool teaches best?

I'll speak for myself because ConnClark surely has something to say about it too. (CC, what do you do for a living, if I may ask?)

I have "calibrated" it based on ChazinMT's recommendations but noticed slight discrepancies between the data and my tuft testing. Not sure what to do about that, but once you get it locked in it should be pretty accurate for most tests, right?

I have no training outside Phil's lectures and other things on this site. I don't have the money for Hucho's book so it's mostly just studying what people say and studying tuft and smoke images (including independent "research" via tuft testing on the Probe). Still, when CC says "99.9%" of people don't know what to look for, I would wager that that other 0.1% is the members on this site, reading this thread, and using the software. If not us, who?

Curious to see what others say.

[GMPG]

Would anyone be willing to run a few simulations for me? I'm on the Beta list but I only have Macs and none with a Windows install.
I've got three outlines of a 2000 Pontiac Sunfire, one stock, one with chin spoiler and minus stock wing (that will go no matter what) and one with the chin spoiler and a Cavalier rear wing that is attached (no gap) at the very back of the trunk and might separate flow at the edge of the decklid if it's attached there.

The stock profile image should be attached to this message. Feedback on size or other qualities I might want to change? The original image came from The-Blueprints.com - The largest free blueprint collection on the Internet, 3D CAD Browser - 3D Models, CAD Models - Home is also a good resource.

Thanks in advance!

GMPG

[Sven7]

I'll do it but need a photo of the Cavalier wing you want.

[GMPG]

Originally Posted by Sven7

I'll do it but need a photo of the Cavalier wing you want.

Thanks Sven! I was going nuts waiting for Flow-Illustrator to come back online and now that the beta is out there I'm practically spastic wanting to see what some mods look like.

I was going to attach the three profiles I've made up but I just got called for a date, some things are more important than mileage. Can you use the image attached to my previous message? That is the stock/baseline Sunfire profile. If that image doesn't work let me know what needs to be changed and I'll mod the stock one and the other two and upload them tomorrow. (Sunday, US East coast)

Thanks again,
GMPG

-- Edit: I just noticed that I forgot to extend the ground line across the image so I'll do that and reposition the car to the left for a better view of the wake.