What to Evaluate During a Simulation Software Trial

That sounds obvious.

In practice, simulation evaluations often become feature tours.

An engineer opens a vendor tutorial.

The model meshes perfectly.

The solver converges.

The contour plot looks impressive.

Everyone agrees that the software works.

But none of that proves that the software works for your engineering organization.

A meaningful simulation trial should test much more than whether the solver can produce a result.

You need to evaluate:

• the physics
• model preparation
• meshing
• solver behavior
• validation
• performance
• post-processing
• workflow integration
• collaboration
• licensing
• pricing
• product direction
• and the engineering time required to make all of it work

Simulation software can be extraordinarily powerful.

It can also become extraordinarily expensive—not only in license cost, but in engineering time.

That is why a structured evaluation matters.

Start With a Real Engineering Problem

Do not begin with the vendor’s demonstration model.

Begin with one of your own representative problems.

It does not need to be your most complicated or confidential product.

It should simply resemble the type of simulation your engineers will actually perform.

For example:

• a structural bracket with realistic loads
• airflow through a representative duct
• an electronics cooling problem
• a nonlinear contact assembly
• an electric motor thermal problem
• a vehicle suspension model
• a pressure vessel
• a vibration problem

The purpose is to recreate your normal engineering workflow.

A tutorial tells you whether the software can solve a carefully prepared tutorial.

Your model tells you whether it can solve your problem.

Define Success Before the Trial Begins

Before installing anything, determine what a successful evaluation looks like.

Write down the questions the software must answer.

Examples might include:

• Can it accurately reproduce our existing test data?
• Can it solve our nonlinear contact problem?
• Can engineers import our CAD assemblies without excessive cleanup?
• Can it run our normal models overnight?
• Can designers use it without constant analyst assistance?
• Can it integrate with our HPC environment?
• Can we automate repetitive analyses?
• Can results be documented for regulatory or customer review?

Without clear criteria, evaluations tend to drift toward whatever features look most impressive.

Know Which Physics You Actually Need

Simulation platforms may support dozens of analysis types.

Do not score them based on the length of the feature list.

Determine which physics matter to your organization.

That might include:

• structural FEA
• nonlinear analysis
• explicit dynamics
• CFD
• thermal simulation
• fatigue
• vibration
• acoustics
• electromagnetics
• multibody dynamics
• system simulation
• multiphysics coupling

Then test those capabilities directly.

If you need nonlinear rubber contact, do not spend most of the trial evaluating linear static FEA.

If your challenge is electronics cooling, do not let an impressive aerodynamic example distract you.

The correct simulation software is the one that solves the problems you actually have.

Evaluate CAD Import

For many engineering teams, simulation begins with CAD.

That makes CAD interoperability one of the most important parts of the trial.

Import models from the CAD systems your organization actually uses.

Test:

• native CAD import
• STEP
• Parasolid
• JT
• IGES
• assembly handling
• geometry updates
• configuration handling

Then ask:

How much geometry survives correctly?

How much cleanup is required?

What happens when the CAD model changes?

Can the simulation model update without being rebuilt from scratch?

A powerful solver can become frustrating very quickly if engineers spend hours repairing imported geometry.

Test Geometry Preparation

Simulation geometry is not always the same as manufacturing geometry.

A CAD model may contain:

• tiny holes
• cosmetic fillets
• threads
• logos
• small fasteners
• complex features

that contribute little to the analysis while making meshing much harder.

Evaluate how easily the software can:

• suppress unnecessary features
• simplify geometry
• remove small details
• repair gaps
• defeature assemblies
• create fluid volumes
• extract midsurfaces

Measure the engineering time required.

Geometry preparation can consume more analyst time than the actual solver.

Evaluate Meshing Carefully

The mesh is fundamental to many simulation methods.

A poor mesh can create inaccurate results even when everything else appears correct.

During the trial, test:

• automatic meshing
• local mesh refinement
• boundary layers
• shell meshing
• solid meshing
• beam elements
• adaptive meshing
• mesh quality controls

Do not evaluate only whether the software produces a mesh.

Ask:

Does it produce a useful mesh with a reasonable amount of engineering effort?

Perform a Mesh-Convergence Study

This is one of the easiest ways to distinguish a serious simulation evaluation from a software demonstration.

Run the same analysis with progressively finer meshes.

Compare the results.

If the predicted stress changes dramatically each time the mesh becomes finer, the result may not yet be trustworthy.

A mesh-convergence study helps determine whether the solution has become sufficiently independent of mesh density.

It also reveals how easy the software makes refinement and comparison.

Test Material Modeling

Real engineering materials are often more complicated than a single value for Young’s modulus.

Depending on your work, you may need:

• plasticity
• hyperelasticity
• viscoelasticity
• composites
• anisotropic materials
• temperature-dependent properties
• creep
• fatigue properties
• failure models

Use the materials your organization actually works with.

Determine whether the software:

• includes appropriate material models
• allows custom material definitions
• documents assumptions clearly
• supports experimental material data

Advanced material capability may be far more important than having another dozen analysis types you never use.

Test Boundary Conditions

Simulation results depend heavily on how the model is constrained and loaded.

During the trial, evaluate how clearly the software allows you to define:

• forces
• pressures
• temperatures
• flow conditions
• constraints
• contacts
• joints
• electrical conditions
• symmetry
• rotating conditions

Then ask a more important question:

Can another engineer inspect the model and understand what assumptions were made?

Simulation setup should be understandable and auditable.

Test Contact

Contact can be one of the most difficult parts of structural simulation.

If your products contain assemblies, evaluate realistic contact conditions.

Test:

• bonded contact
• sliding contact
• friction
• separation
• interference
• large sliding
• changing contact

Determine how much manual setup is required.

Also test whether the software provides useful diagnostic tools when contact causes convergence problems.

Evaluate Solver Convergence

A solver that produces an answer is not necessarily a solver that handles your problem well.

Use difficult models.

Evaluate:

• convergence behavior
• time-step control
• nonlinear solution controls
• error messages
• diagnostics
• automatic stabilization
• restart capability

When a solution fails, determine whether the software helps you understand why.

A cryptic “solver failed” message can cost hours.

Useful diagnostics can save them.

Validate the Results

This is the most important part of the evaluation.

Simulation is not valuable simply because it produces numbers.

Those numbers must be trustworthy.

Compare the trial results against something you already understand.

That might be:

• physical test data
• hand calculations
• analytical solutions
• published benchmark problems
• validated results from another solver
• historical field data

Document the comparison.

For example:

Physical test: 12.4 mm displacement
Existing validated simulation: 12.1 mm
Trial software: 12.3 mm

That tells you much more than a colorful contour plot.

Measure Error, Not Just Appearance

If possible, calculate the difference between simulation and reference results.

Depending on the problem, evaluate:

• displacement error
• stress error
• temperature error
• pressure drop
• flow rate
• natural frequency
• fatigue life

Remember that every reference has uncertainty.

Physical testing has measurement error.

Material data may vary.

Analytical models contain assumptions.

The goal is not necessarily perfect numerical agreement.

The goal is to determine whether the software produces results accurate enough for the engineering decision being made.

Test More Than One Model

One successful model proves very little.

If trial time permits, test several cases:

1. a simple benchmark
2. a representative production model
3. a difficult or unusual problem

This gives you a much better picture of how the software behaves.

A platform may perform beautifully on linear structural problems but struggle with nonlinear contact.

Another may excel at CFD while requiring far more setup than expected.

Evaluate Solver Performance

Simulation can consume substantial computational resources.

Measure:

• mesh generation time
• solve time
• memory usage
• disk requirements
• post-processing time

Use realistic model sizes.

A vendor benchmark using hundreds of CPU cores may have little relevance if your company owns a workstation with 16 cores.

Likewise, workstation performance may matter less if you plan to run everything on HPC or cloud resources.

Test Parallel Computing

If your organization uses multicore workstations, clusters or cloud computing, determine how well the solver scales.

Run the same model with different compute resources.

Compare:

• 4 cores
• 8 cores
• 16 cores
• larger HPC configurations

Doubling the number of cores does not necessarily cut solve time in half.

Measure the actual benefit.

Evaluate Cloud Simulation Separately

Cloud simulation changes the economics and infrastructure requirements of CAE.

If evaluating cloud-based simulation, test:

• upload time
• job submission
• remote solve performance
• parallel jobs
• data storage
• result download
• security
• cost visibility

Also consider what happens when the internet connection is unavailable.

A cloud architecture eliminates some IT problems while creating different dependencies.

Understand Compute Pricing

Some simulation platforms charge separately for cloud computing resources.

That can include:

• core hours
• GPU hours
• storage
• data transfer
• solver consumption

Estimate your normal monthly usage.

A low subscription price can become expensive if realistic workloads consume significant cloud resources.

Evaluate Post-Processing

Simulation does not end when the solver finishes.

Engineers need to understand the results.

Test:

• contour plots
• animations
• graphs
• section views
• vector plots
• streamlines
• probes
• result comparison
• automated reports

Ask how easy it is to answer questions such as:

• Where is the maximum stress?
• Why is it occurring there?
• How does Design B differ from Design A?
• What changed between simulation revisions?

Can You Compare Designs Easily?

Simulation becomes especially valuable when engineers can compare alternatives.

Test:

• multiple load cases
• design variants
• parameter sweeps
• optimization
• DOE
• batch solving

Determine whether the software helps engineers understand trends rather than examining one isolated result at a time.

Evaluate Automation

If your organization performs repetitive analyses, automation may matter as much as solver capability.

Test whether the software supports:

• scripting
• APIs
• templates
• macros
• automated meshing
• automated reports
• batch processing
• design exploration

A workflow that requires 30 manual steps may work during a trial but become expensive when repeated hundreds of times.

Test Optimization

If optimization matters, use it during the evaluation.

Do not simply confirm that the software has an optimization module.

Test whether it can answer questions such as:

• Where can material be removed?
• Which dimensions most affect performance?
• What combination of variables gives the best result?
• Can multiple objectives be balanced?

Also measure the computational cost.

Optimization can require many solver runs.

Evaluate Multiphysics Coupling

If your problem involves interacting physics, test the actual coupling.

Examples:

• CFD + thermal
• thermal + structural
• electromagnetic + thermal
• fluid + structural
• structural + acoustic

Determine how information moves between solvers.

Ask:

Is coupling automatic?

Does it require manual file transfer?

Is it one-way or two-way?

How much additional setup is required?

How stable is the coupled solution?

A platform claiming “multiphysics” may support very different levels of integration.

Test Collaboration

Simulation is rarely performed in complete isolation.

Models and results may need to move among:

• simulation analysts
• designers
• manufacturing engineers
• managers
• customers
• suppliers

Evaluate how easily another person can:

• review the model
• inspect assumptions
• view results
• comment
• compare revisions

If everyone requires an expensive full simulation license just to inspect results, that matters.

Evaluate Simulation Data Management

Simulation models can become large and difficult to manage.

During the trial, determine how the platform handles:

• versions
• revisions
• solver files
• results
• material data
• test data
• reports

Ask whether simulation models can be connected to PLM or another managed engineering environment.

For regulated industries, traceability may be particularly important.

Test CAD Change Management

A common real-world workflow looks like this:

1. engineer creates CAD
2. analyst creates simulation
3. designer changes CAD
4. analyst receives revised geometry
5. simulation must be updated

Test that process.

Do:

• materials survive?
• loads survive?
• mesh controls survive?
• contacts survive?
• simulation setup survive?

If every CAD revision forces the analyst to rebuild the model, the long-term cost can be substantial.

Evaluate the Learning Curve

Record how long common tasks take.

Do not rely only on impressions such as:

“the interface feels intuitive.”

Measure:

• time to import geometry
• time to build the first model
• time to mesh
• time to define loads
• time to produce the first valid result

Then repeat the process after some training.

A difficult tool may become extremely efficient once learned.

An easy-looking tool may become frustrating as models become more complex.

Use More Than One Evaluator

If possible, have several people test the software.

Include:

• an experienced analyst
• an occasional simulation user
• a designer or engineer who may eventually use simulation

Their experiences may differ dramatically.

A dedicated CAE expert may value deep solver controls.

A design engineer may need guided setup.

The correct software depends partly on who will use it.

Test Documentation and Training

During the trial, deliberately search for answers.

Evaluate:

• documentation
• tutorials
• knowledge base
• videos
• training courses
• user community
• technical forums

Do not judge only the quantity of material.

Ask whether it answers real engineering questions.

Good documentation can dramatically reduce long-term support costs.

Test Technical Support

A trial is an excellent time to evaluate support.

Ask a difficult but legitimate technical question.

Record:

• response time
• technical depth
• whether the support engineer understands your problem
• whether they provide a workaround or actual solution

Vendor support matters enormously when simulation becomes part of a production engineering process.

Determine Exactly What the Trial Includes

Never assume the trial configuration matches the license you will eventually buy.

Write down:

• every solver
• every module
• every add-on
• every cloud service
• every HPC option

used during the evaluation.

This is particularly important with modular products.

A trial may give you access to a broad configuration.

The purchased license may not.

Ask for Pricing Early

Do not wait until the technical evaluation is complete.

Ask for pricing while the trial is still underway.

Request pricing for the exact configuration being tested.

Include:

• required modules
• number of users
• compute resources
• token pools
• cloud usage
• maintenance
• support
• training

A technically successful evaluation can still fail commercially.

Understand the Licensing Model

Simulation licensing can be complicated.

You may encounter:

• named-user subscriptions
• floating licenses
• perpetual licenses
• annual term licenses
• token systems
• cloud credits
• solver tokens
• HPC tokens
• consumption-based licensing

Model your actual usage.

Ask:

Can several engineers work simultaneously?

Can one person run several jobs?

What happens when licenses are exhausted?

How much does additional solver capacity cost?

Test Concurrent Usage

This is especially important with token licensing.

Suppose three engineers need to run:

• CFD
• structural analysis
• optimization

at the same time.

Can they?

How many tokens are required?

Will one large solver job prevent everyone else from working?

A shared licensing model can look flexible until real concurrency is tested.

Evaluate Pricing Transparency

The absence of public pricing does not automatically make software bad.

But it creates evaluation risk.

If you cannot determine approximate cost before investing significant engineering time, ask for a budgetary quote early.

Do not spend weeks validating a platform before discovering that the required configuration is economically unrealistic.

Evaluate Product Clarity

Can you understand what you are actually buying?

Large simulation vendors may offer:

• multiple brands
• old product names
• new product names
• cloud versions
• desktop versions
• platform roles
• bundles
• modules

If the product structure is confusing before purchase, determine whether it will become clearer or more complicated after deployment.

Evaluate the Product Roadmap

This is becoming increasingly important.

Engineering software companies acquire one another.

Products get renamed.

Licensing changes.

Cloud platforms replace desktop workflows.

Overlapping products get consolidated.

Ask:

• Is this product actively developed?
• Is it being renamed?
• Is it being migrated?
• Is the licensing model changing?
• Is another product expected to replace it?
• Will this workflow still be supported several years from now?

The purpose is not to predict the future perfectly.

It is to understand whether today’s trial represents the vendor’s expected long-term direction.

Consider Evaluation Investment Risk

A software trial is rarely free.

Even when the license costs nothing, engineers invest time.

They may spend:

• hours learning the interface
• days rebuilding representative models
• weeks validating results
• additional time documenting workflows and training colleagues

That effort has value.

Before making a large evaluation investment, ask:

How confident are we that the product, licensing model and workflow we are learning today will remain relevant to what we eventually purchase?

This is especially important during:

• acquisitions
• rebranding
• platform migrations
• licensing transitions
• product consolidation

Do Not Penalize Acquisition Automatically

Acquisition does not necessarily create a bad evaluation.

A product may become stronger after acquisition.

Access to additional technology, investment and integration can be beneficial.

The evaluation question is more specific:

How much uncertainty does the acquisition create for the workflow we are considering?

That is what should affect the score.

Evaluate Data Security

Simulation models may contain highly sensitive intellectual property.

Before using cloud or externally hosted systems, determine:

• where data is stored
• who can access it
• how it is encrypted
• how backups work
• whether projects are private
• whether data is used for AI training
• how data can be deleted
• which regulatory requirements apply

Never upload confidential engineering geometry to a free public simulation environment unless you have confirmed that doing so is acceptable.

Evaluate Export and Exit Options

One question is often forgotten:

What happens if we stop using the software?

Determine whether you can export:

• geometry
• meshes
• solver decks
• results
• reports
• material data

Understand which files are proprietary.

Vendor lock-in may be acceptable.

But it should be understood before adoption.

Record Engineering Time

Track how long each part of the evaluation takes.

For example:

Task	Time
Geometry preparation	2.0 hr
Meshing	1.5 hr
Model setup	2.5 hr
Solver troubleshooting	1.0 hr
Solve	0.5 hr
Post-processing	1.0 hr
Total engineer time	8.5 hr

That number may be more commercially important than solver runtime.

Engineering labor is expensive.

Separate Technical Fit From Trial Friendliness

This is important.

A simulation product may be:

• technically excellent
• difficult to trial
• expensive
• poorly priced
• frustrating to license

Another may be:

• extremely easy to access
• inexpensive
• beautifully designed
• technically inadequate for your problem

Do not let one score hide the other.

Evaluate technical fit separately from the quality of the vendor’s evaluation process.

A Good Trial Should Answer Five Questions

By the end of the evaluation, you should know:

1. Can it solve our physics?

Does the software support the engineering problems we need to analyze?

2. Can we trust the results?

Have the results been validated against something credible?

3. Can our engineers use it efficiently?

How much training and engineering time does the workflow require?

4. Can our organization afford it?

Do licensing, computing and support costs make sense?

5. Are we comfortable investing in this workflow?

Does the product roadmap, licensing model and vendor direction justify the implementation effort?

If those questions remain unanswered, the trial is not finished.

Download the Simulation Software Trial Scorecard

We created a Simulation Software Trial Scorecard specifically to help engineers structure this evaluation.

The Scorecard overs:

Trial and Evaluation Experience

• access
• trial usefulness
• learning resources
• pricing transparency
• product clarity

Technical Fit

• physics coverage
• CAD import
• model preparation
• meshing
• solver behavior
• validation
• performance
• post-processing
• automation
• multiphysics

Commercial Fit

• licensing
• compute cost
• collaboration
• support
• deployment

Evaluation Investment Risk

• product roadmap
• acquisition or integration uncertainty
• licensing transition
• workflow longevity

The scorecard intentionally gives technical fit the greatest weight.

A convenient trial should never outweigh inaccurate simulation.

And an inconvenient sales process should not disguise excellent engineering technology.

The Best Simulation Trial Produces Evidence

At the end of the evaluation, you should have more than an opinion.

You should have evidence.

A useful trial leaves behind:

• validated results
• performance measurements
• workflow timing
• cost estimates
• licensing requirements
• known limitations
• support experience
• implementation concerns
• a documented score

Then the purchasing decision becomes much easier.

You are no longer asking:

“Which software did we like?”

You are asking:

“Which software demonstrated that it can solve our engineering problems reliably enough, efficiently enough and affordably enough to justify adopting it?”

That is the question a simulation trial is supposed to answer.