Top Rated Ansys HFSS Alternatives
39 Ansys HFSS Reviews
High accuracy results and speed of simulation are what I like more about this CAD software. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
In my humble opinion it has uncomfortable drawing and edition 3d elements process. There is not (or wasn't at least) a comfort parametrical design (like in CST). Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Its capabilities and multiphysics capabilities. Helps well in antenna design, matching circuit ,and whole antenna systems to design. Good tool to analyses and interpret antenna parameters .Helps in PCB SI/PI analysis as well.Accuracy is USP. Design explorer and optimisation is also very easy to use. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
system integration like antenna on a structure like aircraft,car takes bit of more efforts and analysis takes some more time.Though savant added its capabilities little a lot it needs to be more robust . Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Most helpful feature is the debugging tools integrated into the software. A validation check will return all the errors in your design with useful tips of how to fix them.
Also, their support team is always an email away to get any other issues fixed! Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The programme files are not backwards compatible. If you create a design on HFSS 2017, you cannot open it on a 2019!! This has led to some issues throughout my team. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
I like the software's accuracy and the modeler is okay. One major pro is that if I copy and paste a solid from one project to another, I can go into the solid and still alter its dimensions. In other softwares, once you copy and paste, you can no longer edit to solid. In general, though, HFSS presents results I can trust, even if getting them can be irritating sometimes. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
HFSS had stability problems when I was using it. I don't know if it was a hardware issue, but crashes weren't as much of a rarity as I would have liked. It's not the most unstable software I have used (that title goes to Altium), but more than once, I lost a good amount of work due to a crash mid-simulation. Furthermore HFSS erases the ability to undo model alterations after a simulation has begun. The software I use most frequently nowadays is CST Microwave Studio, which keeps track of all your actions in a history list. The downside to that is the more you work on a model, the longer it takes to update the history list after an edit is made, which is unfavorable. However, I would rather have the ability to undo at all after a simulation, especially if I change something that is not based on a parameter variable.
Aside from that, the thing about HFSS that I dislike the most is the presence of a certain error that would appear randomly but periodically across projects and what I had to do to get rid of it was never consistent (increasing my airbox size by a random amount, no matter how small, was even a solution sometimes). Unfortunately, I do not remember the text of the error (I apologize for how unhelpful that is), but it had something to do with the meshing I think and the error message was not specific. I do not think it was user error because, again, the cause and solution were never consistent.
I think the modeler needs work as well; CST has the option to define coordinate system positions based on model vertices, edges, and faces. This makes building models far more efficient. HFSS should adopt similar techniques. Further, I would really love the ability to extrude shapes off of the faces model objects. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Interface, display, features, designing capabilities.
1. Ease in implementing wave/lumped ports.
2. Ease of E/H field display and radiation patterns
3. Great support community
4. Ability to re-define meshing
5. Ability to use circuit simulation software
6. Ease of exporting s-parameter files into MATLAB
7. Ansys Maxwell/Workbench are great useful tools
8. Ease of using .stp files Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
1. Meshing requirements and troubleshooting for issues in design is difficult Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Being able to choose among numerous results included by default. Simple changing of parameters after dong a simulation makes it possible to get various results after a single simulation. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Adjusting the radiation box and attaching ports is a bit hard, it’s better if it include some more automatic capabilities for these. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Very easy to use and I learned how to use it in no time, it's pretty accurate with respect to other simulation tools. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
There should be more user guides or maybe more in detail official tutorial. Errors are not that easy to identify Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The tool provides us with an environment that enables us to draw the actual high-frequency structure based on requirements and applications. The simulated results obtained from HFSS were quite close to the experimental results obtained in the lab. We can even customize the simulation time according to what level of accuracy is acceptable in a particular application. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The simulation time is very large and depending upon the complexity and accuracy required it increases even more.
Therefore, making changes in the structure (to get to perfect) and re simulate is a really time-consuming process. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
The best was the ability to calculate parameters for an antenna designed and to visualize these in order to get a better insight. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Disliked the fact that the time to calculate the results were high. Some took a few minutes, while others took a few hours Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
