Pointwise - Recent Threads

Question About Reading Mesh Files in Pointwise v18.4

AN202505136027 — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 23:14:01 GMT

Hi All,

I would like to check whether there is backward compatibility, or any available workaround, for reading a mesh created in Fidelity Pointwise 2023.2.1 in Pointwise v18.4.

Kind regards,

Akshay

Pointwise Grid Solve Feature

AN202505136027 — Tue, 29 Jul 2025 04:05:20 GMT

Hi everyone,

I'm using the Grid Solve feature to smooth the mesh in critical areas. One issue I'm facing is matching the spacing between two adjacent blocks, especially when the spacing varies along the block. Is there an option in Grid Solve to adapt to this changing spacing so that both blocks have matching grid distribution?

Thanks

Axis to axis transformation in Pointwise

MB202504181844 — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:34:37 GMT

Hello,

I have a high-lift design and have meshed a flap setting. I want to use the same flap mesh to create another flap setting.

As the motion from one flap setting to another is quite complex, it is not that straightforward to do a rotation and a translation. Would it be possible to define an axis system to the flap (i.e. source axis) and define a target axis system (i.e. destinations axis) and do an axis-to axis transformation of the flap mesh? This would be very useful.

Thanks

Activation codes for Pointwise perpetual license

tnapoles — Thu, 23 Jan 2025 14:46:04 GMT

Hi, We have a perpetual Pointwise license that we need activation codes for. The license was bought before Cadence took over Pointwise so we don't have access to support for Pointwise anymore, can someone let me know whi I should contact?

Thanks,

Thomas Napoles

Duke University

Influence of Sources on "Match" Symmetry Planes

TW202408282947 — Wed, 28 Aug 2024 21:21:44 GMT

I have run into an issue in multiple scenarios where, when initializing an unstructured block, "match" domains do not respect sources. The most common scenario is when I am modeling only half the domain (assuming a symmetric solution), and my sources (for instance, where I want high resolution in regions of interest) cross through the symmetry plane, and that symmetry plane intersects walls. So when I initialize the block, I have a "match" domain (symmetry plane) that must match the boundary layer growth AND respect sources in the isotropic tet region. When I build the symmetry plane domain, before initializing the block, it is refined by the source, but as soon as I initialize the block, that refinement goes away. Our current "fix" is to "Initialize Boundary Only" so that the symmetry plane gets the correct trex settings at the wall (this will also get rid of the refinement from the source), and then re-"initialize domain" for only the symmetry plane to get the source refinement back, and then initialize the block with "Push Attributes" turned OFF. This is cumbersome, and it is rather unintuitive when trying to explain to someone else how to modify and regenerate one of my meshes.

My understanding is that when "Push Attributes" is ON, it will automatically re-initialize any boundary set to "match", but for some reason, that domain initialization (which the user cannot control) does not have sources turned on. I haven't found a way in any settings to change this behavior, and I don't know why it is default.

I would think that this kind of workflow is fairly standard, so I would appreciate any help navigating the issue how Pointwise intends it. Or if this is just a bug or a inaccessible default setting that should be changed, this would make a great feature request! Thanks!

Create a Block between inflation layers

MS20240828216 — Wed, 28 Aug 2024 09:07:13 GMT

Hello everyone,
My problem is creating a block between the inflation layers. The reason for the failing of the block creation are the domains on the outer surface of the vane-block, which were created during the extrusion of the vane in rectangular z-direction. The problem here is that these domains of the vane are too long and go directly into the wall layers (problematic domains marked in white). That's why it's not possible to create the block in the empty space between the inflation layers of the walls and the vane.

My question: is it possible to shorten the domains that they fit in the space between the two wall layers and they keep the same height so that there is no gap between the block I want to create and the vane block.
I’ve already tried to create the domains manually by creating connectors with the length of the distance between the two wall layers. This allowed me to create a block, but there was a gap between the created block and the block of the vane. The reason for the gap is that the manually created domain was not exactly on the outer surface of the vane-block.

I hope you could follow my explanations
Thanks for your help

Termination of T-rex layers against adjacent domain

JH202408202239 — Tue, 27 Aug 2024 14:52:41 GMT

Hello everyone,

I am making a mesh for an internal flow around a cone. I use the T-rex algorithm to create inflation layers. See the left image below. On the left hand side you can see one of the domains that form the boundaries of the block, which has the boundary type 'match'. In order to mesh the adjacent block nicely, I had to set the number of T-rex layers lower than in this block. As a result, the T-rex algorithm needs to add in 5 additional layers coming off of the 'match' domain (or terminate layers coming towards the 'match' domain depending on your reference). However, the way in which it does this, creates highly skewed cells (view the image on left below). The top layers are curved upwards creating a much taller cell in the middle of the inflation layer. The behaviour I would expect is in the image on the right, where the additional layers are neatly stacked on the others. This still creates skewed cells, but less so.

Can you explain why this behaviour occurs and how I might obtain something that resembles the right picture? Thank you very much!

Connect inflation layers around a corner between two split bodies

IE202408012526 — Thu, 01 Aug 2024 14:41:07 GMT

Hello everyone,

I am using Pointwise to create a inflation layer around a corner between 2 bodies.

I want to define a porous zone in one of the bodies, therefore I cannot connect them directly and create all inflation layers together because I need seperate blocks for each volume.

The current status of my mesh is shown in the 2 pictures below:

Is it possible to connect the inflation layers in an angle of 45 degress or similiar to that, maybe as some kind of boundary condition in the extrude settings when creating the boundary layers?

An example of what I would like to get is shown in this picture:

But then I can't treat them as 2 seperate bodies / blocks anymore.

Do you have any advice?

Thank you very much!

Grid Sensitivity Analysis on Pointwise

Jmendez — Fri, 31 May 2024 13:01:10 GMT

Dear #CFD community;

I want to do a grid sensitivity analysis in #pointwise, but I do not want to manually go connector by connector and increase / decrease each connector. I heard that there is a Glyph script that does all that. Is that available for that?

Is there any other way to use a factor to increase/reduce the mesh density globally, either at the block or domain level?

What is the most efficient alternative to run a grid sensitivity here on Pointwise so I can increase or reduce my mesh size by factors? Ideally, it should be done without messing up with the height of the first cell to keep y+ "constant" or fairly constant. #GCI

the parallel strategy of PointWise in high-order curved mesh generation

Studyhardhardhard — Thu, 30 May 2024 14:56:30 GMT

Hello, everyone. I have a question about the parallel strategy of PointWise in high-order curved mesh generation.

We all know that producing a high-order mesh can be a lengthy and computationally expensive process for larger grids. Based on my observations of PointWise in the Windows Task Manager, it seems that PointWise primarily runs on a single core when handling large-scale high-order curved mesh generation. However, for a very small fraction of the time, less than one-tenth of the total, PointWise appears to operate in multi-core parallel, as indicated by nearly 90%+ CPU usage.

I am particularly interested in this multi-core parallel phase. I have consulted the Grid, Elevate page in the Fidelity PointWise User Manual and related academic papers, learning that it consists of Elevation and WCN smoothing phases, with detailed explanations of the underlying principles provided in the papers.

However, I have not found any description of its parallel strategy. How does it allocate computational resources? Why does it run in parallel for such a brief period and in serial for the rest of the time? What is it doing during these brief periods of parallel operation? Where can I find more detailed information about this? I am genuinely interested in this, especially its short bursts of parallel activity.

Best Regards.

curve the mesh failed in PointWise for high order mesh

Studyhardhardhard — Thu, 30 May 2024 13:34:28 GMT

Hello, everyone.

If I import a geometric model first, divide the grid on the basis of it, and then export it as a high-order curved grid, the grid is curved smoothly.

Now, if I have a grid of CGNS and the geometric model matched with this grid, I use pointwise software to open the model and geometric file and export it as a high-order curved grid.

The grid is not curved, and the exported result is a high-order straight grid. Why?

In this case, how can I generate curved high-order curved grids?

Thank you for everyone!

Best Regards

Unwanted boundary node move after running elliptical grid solver

nickheath — Tue, 25 Oct 2022 05:51:03 GMT

Hi all,

I'm running into an issue where the boundary nodes of a connector will tend to 'kink' at the edges of two domain after running the elliptical solver to improve the mesh quality. As these boundaries are inlets/outlets, I need all cells to be normal to the wall for obvious reasons. I am keeping the boundary layer mesh separate from the outer domain for greater control.

The tweak tool will only allow internal domain nodes to me shifted around, so I can't manually move the connector node.

Are there any suggestions as to what I can to or what I am doing wrong?

Thanks in advance.