Talk:OpenFOAM

Why marked as "like an advertisement"?

It's not more advertisement as the articles about MatLab or MS Office. I suggest the tag to be removed. 192.194.184.206 (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Though "advertisement" might be a bit strong, the bias is clear and totally pervasive. I don't think it would take too much to reword the existing article using a neutral point of view. I would also suggest an Advantages/Disadvantages section, particularly a word on what OpenFOAM cannot do that is well handled by other codes (commercial or open source). This might make the whole article be more balanced. Molienet (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I started to clean it up a bit. Albertopa (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the banner can now be removed. Please, let me know if you disagree. Alberto Passalacqua (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a paragraph in History that talks about OpenFOAM being the first to do this and that... these are unsubstantiated, subjective claims... if they're true, I think they're wonderful, but we need to back them up. Marupio (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there is a section on the OpenFOAM advantages and disavantages as it was previously suggested, most notably the absence of a Graphical User Interface, probably it would be worth to add also a section to the available GUI for OpenFOAM, in particular the free ones as it can be very relevant and useful. This is already present in the German version of the page, it would be great to have a second opinion on that prior to implementing it. Thank you. JakFra (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Forks

I think things might get a little heated over how much content to include for the forks. If we can learn from anyone, it's the MySQL community. They went through serious fragmentation. Now the main page is about MySQL, with a bullet list of forks, each with a paragraph description, and a link to their own page. I think we should borrow from this format, and keep the OpenFOAM page classy, and advertising-free. Marupio (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should really keep an eye on advertisers: I cleaned up the page trying to make it neutral, and I would not like others, especially those who do not contribute a single line of code to the open releases of OF, use this page as advertisement for their professional services. Maybe we should specify what forks originated a publicly available release, and those who did not. --Alberto Passalacqua (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. Perhaps we could put non-public forks / adaptations into a heading "Commercial Adaptations of OpenFOAM"... I can think of Icon and Symscape for that. Also, I stumbled across freecfd... I wonder if we should list that as an alternative. I plan to make some of these changes soon. edit: done. Marupio (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a couple of section renames "Publicly available" to "Open Source" and "Not publicly available" to "Closed Source". I've added a reference to OpenFlow to clarify that the Windows OpenFOAM components in blueCFD are derived from OpenFlow. Also I have clarified the relationship between Symscape, Caedium and OpenFOAM. Full disclosure: I represent Symscape. Syguy (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but all of them would then fall into the category "Open Source". Any fork of OpenFOAM that isn't open source cannot be distributed, or violates GNU GPL 2. I originally created the two categories because commercial interests were polluting the entire article, (unlike the way you made your changes). So the idea was to have all the forks listed at the bottom, and to separate them "Free" from "Not Free". I think we could consider combining them into one category of "Forks," but I feel it's important that the reader can tell which are free and which are not. Also, the distributions they list should be alphabetical to avoid any implied ranking. I've reworked it a little. Currently I've listed Caedium and OpenFlow as separate items, but this might be a bad idea, as other companies may have a diverse OpenFOAM-related product line that they would want represented that way as well. Let me know what you think! Marupio (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One more thing - I think that the "Capabilities" and the "Structure of OpenFOAM" sections are a little tedious in their current form. I'd love to rework them when I have time. Marupio (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying with "Free Software" and "Software available for purchase". However, I think there's a more distinct line to be drawn. I can speak to OpenFlow and Caedium RANS Flow. OpenFlow is a derivative of OpenFOAM and therefore licensed under the GPL - though you can buy the binaries as a convenience the source code is freely available to anyone. As I understand it blueCFD falls within the same category as OpenFlow. Caedium RANS Flow is closed source that uses (runs) OpenFOAM solvers in separate processes, so it doesn't fall under the GPL. In terms of closed source 'using' OpenFOAM I believe CastNet and the GUI portion of FOAMpro fall within the same category as Caedium. Caedium and others in that category are not forks, and hence my suggestion to categorize according to Open Source and Closed Source. On further thought maybe it's worth considering a "Derived Works" section rather than forks - I don't consider OpenFlow a fork - and then a "Complimentary Software" section for the GUI/Pre-Processor/Post-Processor-like applications. So for the time being I've put OpenFlow back in the free software section. Syguy (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The forks section includes SwiftBlock and SwiftSnap. In my opinion those those are great community *addons*, in contrast to large forks/adaptions such as FreeFoam, Helyx, etc. Thus, I plead for them to be removed from that section. Ankid (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Article factually incorrect

My name is Hrvoje Jasak and I am one of the two original authors of the OpenFOAM code. This page has been specifically designed to exclude my contribution to the project and to attempt to re-write history to serve the commercial interest of Mr. Weller. This will need to be fixed.

I have started working on the FOAM code in September 1993 and the first versions of the code with my contributions exist in archives in December 1993, which can be recovered. I have since continuously worked on the code, including my time as the Technical Director of Nabla Ltd, a UK-based company which owned the Copyright to the code between 2000 and 2004. As references, see my PhD Thesis, which is still a premier reference to the OpenFOAM numerics and multiple publications from this period.

My contributions range from the first lines of blockMesh, parallelism, turbulence modelling, mesh handling (polyhedral) and many many more. At the time of the split of Nabla Ltd in Dec/2004, my contribution consisted of approx 30% of the complete code base, verifiably written personally by myself.

In 2004, the Copyright to the code has been illegally transferred from Nabla Ltd (in my co-ownership with Mr. Weller) to the new company OpenCFD Ltd, set up exclusively by Mr. Weller. This case of fraud has been reported to the Metropolitan Police at the time and the legal documentation still exists.

At the time, all my code authorship signatures, witnessing to my practical contribution to the code have been deleted by Mr. Weller; fortunately, the full source code for the final Nabla Ltd. version (foam-2.3.2, Dec/2004) still exists and is available for inspection.

I do not feel I am the right person to change the text of this article (due to a necessary lack of distance and objectivity); however, the article cannot remain in the current form.

Hrvoje Jasak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C3:14BF:6400:1C33:254B:6176:C80A (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I updated the section to cover this missing period of OpenFOAM's history. Ankid (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Request comment on the notability of the article

@MrOllie:

Myself and User:MrOllie have disagreed on the notability of the current article. I currently agree with User:MrOllie that the quality, and resources of the entry should be improved. Nevertheless, User:MrOllie has put the general notability guideline tag, and paved the way for the deletion of the page.

In my humble opinion, this entry should not be deleted on the grounds that the software is being used by considerable amount of engineers in the world. The following Wiki-entry analyser states that the entry was visited around 12k times in the last three months, which is in my opinion is considerable: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=OpenFOAM

I kindly request a third-party opinion regarding the necessity of the general notability guideline tag.

17kuti (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The tag doesn't 'pave the way' for the deletion of the page, it just asks others to cite some sources to establish notability. I maintain that the tag shouldn't be removed until someone cites such sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For the discussions regarding the deletion and MrOllie's primary intention for it, please also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie#OpenFOAM 17kuti (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Note: I've removed the RfC tag. It wasn't formatted correctly or neutrally worded; please see WP:RFC for more information. Also, an RfC isn't really going to determine consensus for notability. Maybe it would help determine consensus for whether or not the {{notability}} tag is appropriate, but that's probably overkill for an RfC. If an editor feels that topic of the article really isn't notable, they can always nominate it for deletion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I pledge to remove the warnings - the software in question is widely used in the academic community. Declaring all these sources as "self-published" is a harsh misunderstanding resp. distortion of WP:sources and other guidelines. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

We should removing the warnings, after the sourcing problems are addressed. - MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie

I have reviewed this article and discussions above and looked externally, and there appears to be some missing and misleading information, which I have now tried to include in a manner that provides clearer and objective information to readers about this software.

In addition to what is provided already for the OpenCFD fork of OpenFOAM for their governance structure around their OpenFOAM software, I have seen on the Foundation website that the organisation itself is funded by external companies, of which many may be considered “notable” companies using this software: https://openfoam.org/supporters/ . If this helps in anyway. RedRhufu517 (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Associations with notable companies don't help, no. See WP:NOTINHERITED. OpenFOAM has to stand on its own, with its own sources that meet the notability guidelines. MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Some sources

• https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=292588
• http://www.hpc.cineca.it/software/openfoam
• https://www.esi-group.com/engineering-services/consulting-services/openfoam

Academic context:

• https://www.lrz.de/services/compute/courses/archive/2019/2019-01-14_hiof1w18/
• http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~hani/kurser/OS_CFD/
• https://www.tuhh.de/rzt/software/stroemungsmechanik/openfoam.html
• https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/libraryservices/library/digitaltechnologyskills/courses/openfoam.aspx
• https://www.zarm.uni-bremen.de/research/space-science/thermofluid-dynamics/tools/openfoam.html?L=%271
• https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/en/ifl/simulation-tools/numerical-fluid-analysis/openfoam

IMHO, the notablity discussion for this software is ... quite grotesque. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Which of these sources are written and published independently of the article subject and its developers and sponsors? - MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are six european universities, who are funded by government budgets. They and various others form an allience to coordinate work on this opensource software - und you question the 'notablity' of it? What is your attitude on Centipede_(video_game), for example? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The article on Centipede cites numerous sources that are written and published independently of Atari. That is not the case for OpenFOAM. - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, the cited universities are independent of OpenCFD Ltd. Or how do you perceive their dependency?
Also, lets look at the sources for another opensource software: Debian#References --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• MrOllie I removed the tag - please note there's rough consensus here to remove it. Enough WP:RS exist for WP:GNG, they need not be used in the article, listed here, and I need not add them before removing the tag per {{notability}}, further The template must not be re-added. Widefox; talk 00:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Grafische Benutzer Schnittstellen (GUIs) und Werkzeuge zur Arbeit mit OpenFOAM

• BIM HVACTool Ist eine GUI für die Gebäudesimulation mit OpenFOAM des Herstellers TIAN Building Engineering
• SwiftBlock und SwiftSnap sind zwei Python-plug-in-Scripte für Blender, die das Erstellen der Konfigurationsdateien `blockMeshDict` und `snappyHexMeshDict` erleichtern.
• HELYX-OS ist eine grafische Benutzeroberfläche zum Arbeiten mit dem automatischen Vernetzungsprogramm snappyHexMesh.
• MantiumFlow ist eine CLI und GUI für OpenFOAM. Pre- und Post-Processing sind komplett zu Apps automatisiert.
• SimScale ist eine cloud-basierte Simulationssoftware, die OpenFOAM und andere Löser integriert.
• Sim-Flow ist eine GUI für OpenFOAM. Die Variante RapidCFD vom gleichen Hersteller bietet zusätzlich GPU-basierte Gleichungslöser.
• iconCFD ist eine weitere kommerzielle Version von OpenFOAM mit einer graphischen Oberfläche.
• visualCFD ist eine von ESi vertriebene kommerzielle Benutzeroberfläche für OpenFOAM.
• InsightCAE ist ein Open-Source-Projekt um Simulationsabläufe für spezielle Anwendungen zu automatisieren und mit einer GUI zu versehen ("vertikale Apps"). Als Backend für CFD-Simulationen wird OpenFOAM verwendet.
• FEATool Multiphysics ist eine in der Octave/MATLAB m-code script language programmierte Anwendung
• CastNet ist eine kommerzielle GUI für OpenFOAM mit direktem CAD-Kernel-Import, integriertem Netzgenerator und snappyHexMesh-Unterstützung. Unterstützt werden die OpenFOAM-Versionen von ESI, von der OpenFOAM Foundation und blueCFD-Core.
• SimWorks ist eine freie GUI für OpenFOAM. Es gibt auch eine kommerzielle Variante für Unternehmen namens SimWorks Manager.

References

Abgeleitete Programme und Projekte

• OpenFOAM (ehm. OpenFOAM+) ist die von ESi weiterentwickelte Variante, welche von der Foundation Version 3.0.x abstammt.
• Das Extend-Project mit seiner von der Entwicklergemeinde entwickelten Version „foam-extend-4.0“, welche auf der Version OpenFOAM-1.6 basiert und zusätzliche Funktionen wie „Radial Basis Function“, „General Grid Interface (GGI)“, „Finite-Flächen-Methode (Finite Area Method, FAM)“ oder „Block Coupled Matrix Solver“ enthält. Die Entwicklergemeinde um das Extend-Project veranstaltet auch den seit 2006 jährlich stattfindenden „Openfoam Workshop“.
• FreeFOAM bietet keine zusätzliche Funktionalität gegenüber OpenFOAM, versucht aber die Portabilität auf andere Betriebssysteme zu erleichtern, indem es CMake statt des OpenFOAM-eigenen „wmake“ (Weller make) verwendet. Die FreeFOAM-Umstellung auf CMake wurde von einem Entwickler des Extend-Projects verwendet, um eine native Portierung auf Microsoft Windows zu bewerkstelligen. FreeFOAM wird nicht mehr aktiv weiterentwickelt.
• caelus-CML ist ein OpenFOAM-Fork und bezeichnet sich als "Computational Mechanics Library" um die breiten Einsatzmöglichkeiten im Bereich der CAE anzudeuten. Die native Portabilität auf die Betriebssysteme (Mac, Linux und Windows) wird bei caelus mit SCons als Build System bewerkstelligt.
• blueCFD-Core ist eine mit MinGW crosskompilierte Windowsportierung.

References