Видео

I would look at the output window for any errors. Boolean-related errors won't pop up but will be in the output window. Secondly, it may be due to flat sheet metal being used in a boolean/sheet part of anything. Finally, a bad intersection may be causing the issue. if two parts meet on a flat surface, they need to fully intersect each other for Unite to work.

Interesting, I have not heard of this before. I will look into grid verification. However, with my current CFD, the mesh size does seem to affect both drag and downforce by 1ish percent with minor modifications to the mesh near aerodynamic elements. Does this variation mean that my CFD is not percise?

@@Idontknow-ec5bj If it is that small a variation then your CFD is precise and solution can be considered grid independent. Most literature and industry accept errors less than 5%. For example, Ma < 0.3 is incompressible with density variation being less than 5% . This means your solution is converged. Btw, when you refine the grid, are you reducing the wall y+ as well? I have noticed that y+ < 1 and y+ approx 0.1 lead to around 2-3% variation in wall shear stress.

I'd say - there is a long way in here till thinking about any kind of mesh independency: at 08:49 transition from hex cells to prism layers (of uniform thickness!) is .. beyond good and evil %)

@@sergeianpilov5222 Indeed. that abrupt change would manifest itself in errors when doing grid sensitivity. It may be okay if that region is outside the BL. That depends on the flow conditions.

You could try using scale sketch or make a geometry and scale the geometry.

The information about controls in automated mesh is semi-explained some RUclips videos, but overall I think it is explained pretty badly. I will make a video explaining this soon.