MENUWhen it comes to CFD post-processing software, engineers today have no shortage of options. Among the most common choices are open-source tools like ParaView and commercial CFD post-processing software like Tecplot 360 and FieldView. Each solution has advantages. For example, open-source tools like ParaView are free to use and have active communities of contributors. That leads to an inevitable question: why pay for a post-processor when free options exist?
The answer lies in the factors that matter in professional workflows like superior memory efficiency, reliability under demanding workloads, and access to responsive live support, that make commercial CFD software like Tecplot especially valuable. Let’s take a closer look at these factors.
Factor 1: Memory Efficiency
Massive datasets are common in automotive CFD, which often involve transient cases, multi-variable runs, and large meshes. Efficient memory use is essential to avoid slowdowns due to memory swapping or worse, software crashes. Open-source tools like ParaView are designed with scalability in mind and can handle large datasets. However, performance may vary depending on the type of data, system setup, and workflow.
Tecplot has been engineered specifically for memory efficiency. Features like subzone load-on-demand in Tecplot 360 intelligently loads only the data you need, drastically reducing memory demands. FieldView’s XDB-based workflows can also drastically reduce the amount of CFD data you need to retain, which reduces data footprint and accelerates future analysis. But we know that action speaks louder than words, so we have run a number of experiments with different data types to gather benchmarks on how Tecplot handles large CFD datasets in comparison to open-source tools.
Testing with CONVERGE Data
In a recent experiment, we decided to test for the execution time and peak RAM required to create a plot for a reasonably large, multi-cycle internal combustion engine CONVERGE simulation. The dataset is composed of 1278 timesteps, totaling 169Gb on disk. The graph below shows the outcome of our tests running the processes serially (i.e. producing 1 image at a time).
As you can see in the image above, Tecplot 360 got the job done in less time and used less memory than ParaView. For more details, click here.
Testing with PLOT3D Data
In this experiment, we put FieldView, Tecplot 360, and ParaView to the test with PLOT3D data to see which one performed the fastest. One of the primary producers of PLOT3D data is NASA’s Overflow code, which is the code that produced the data we tested here. For this test we used 46 timesteps in a transient simulation of a wind turbine. These total 118 Gb on disk and 2.18 trillion elements. The final timestep alone is 20.9 Gb (grid and solution), composed of 5863 zones, and has a total of 263 million elements.
In this experiment we load the data, compute Q-Criterion, draw an isosurface at Q=0.001, and export the image. We repeat this for each grid/solution pair in the time series and capture the execution time and the maximum RAM consumed.
As you can see from the image above, FieldView proved to be the fastest and most memory-efficient post-processor. To learn more about this test, click here.
Factor 2: Reliability
We know that tight deadlines and quick design changes are crucial to success in the automotive industry.The last thing you need is software that crashes unexpectedly. Repeated crash dumps when working in an interactive session are frustrating and can cost you valuable time – but failures in automated workflows that you’re counting on to complete overnight can be devastating. With open-source software, you are more likely to experience bugs, unfinished features, and slower workflows. (Possibly reference the amount of open bugs/support cases they have on the Git)
Tecplot invests heavily in development and testing so you can count on stable, consistent performance with fewer bugs and fewer surprises. Each release goes through rigorous validation to ensure stability, backward compatibility and consistent performance. Many of the new features in our product releases come straight from user requests because we care about making improvements that actually impact our users’ workflows.
Factor 3: Live Support
With commercial software, like Tecplot 360 and FieldView, you get access to a live support team. These teams can augment your own staff to help troubleshoot issues or develop workflows. Having access to this level of support can be the difference between hitting a deadline and missing it. With ParaView and other open-source solutions, primary support stems from community forums and documentation. While these resources are helpful, it can be tedious when searching for answers. Who wants to spend hours combing through subs for answers to time-sensitive problems?
With a Tecplot 360 or FieldView license, our users get access to a dedicated support team that will communicate with them until their problem is solved. Oftentimes, our support team can also formulate custom solutions for new problems that arise. For engineers who value live, knowledgeable assistance, commercial tools like Tecplot have a clear advantage over open-source tools.
The Bottom Line
There’s no denying that open-source tools like ParaView are an important part of the CFD ecosystem. But in environments where deadlines are tight and datasets are massive, commercial tools like Tecplot offer advantages that can make all the difference. By investing in performance optimization, rigorous testing, and responsive support, Tecplot helps engineers spend less time worrying about their tools and more time driving innovation forward. Ready to see how Tecplot can accelerate your automotive CFD workflows? Explore our solutions for the automotive industry.