- Post By Shlomo Levi
- 13 hours ago
- Post Type Public
Hi,
I’m looking for technical criticism on an early architecture/RFC-stage open-source CAE application-layer initiative.
The goal is not to build a new solver, clone commercial CAE software, or replace existing open-source tools.
The goal is to define the missing application layer that could connect existing open-source engineering tools into one coherent workflow: CAD/geometry, assemblies, MBD, FEA, CFD-ready workflows, meshing, visualization, results, reporting, and future automation.
The public repository is currently focused on architecture, RFCs, MVP definition, and technical review. There is no public implementation yet, although the architecture is informed by prior private prototype work around a Qt-based desktop CAE shell, model tree workflows, viewport interaction, command routing, and diagnostics.
I’m especially interested in feedback from CAE users on:
1. Whether the application-layer direction makes sense.
2. What risks exist around connecting CAD, meshing, solvers, and results into one workflow.
3. How FEA/CFD boundary regions, mesh groups, loads, and result fields should influence the early architecture.
4. Whether the proposed Core Model / Solver Adapter / Results Layer separation is reasonable.
5. What mistakes should be avoided before implementation begins.
Repository:
https://github.com/Shlomo365/open-cae-application-layer
Main RFC discussion:
https://github.com/Shlomo365/open-cae-application-layer/discussions
The most useful feedback would be:
What is the biggest architectural risk, missing assumption, or workflow mistake in this direction?
Thanks,
Shlomo
