When simulation projects truly enter the decision-making phase, it is often not a single engineer viewing a contour plot alone, but rather structural, fluid, thermal design, project management, and customer representatives reviewing results together. Traditional practices relying on screenshots, PowerPoint, and email exchanges easily lead to information fragmentation and version confusion.
Industry Pain Points
- Review conclusions scattered across different documents
- Difficulty in synchronously discussing results from different physics fields for the same model
- Annotation comments cannot directly trace back to result objects and load-case objects
Solution Objectives
- Jointly view multiple physics field results within a single model view
- Leave digital annotations targeting specific locations, load cases, and result variables
- Link annotations, conclusions, and version changes back to the project workflow
Recommended Capabilities
Linked Result Review
Support switching between stress, temperature, pressure, displacement, streamline, and other results within a single review session, while retaining unified viewing positions and section settings.
Location-Level Annotation
Annotations should not only be textual descriptions but should also be bound to:
- Model location
- Variable type
- Current load case
- Author and timestamp
Closed-Loop Conclusions
After an annotation is raised, it must be possible to continue tracking:
- Whether it has been addressed
- Whether the modified results have been reviewed
- Whether the issue has been closed
Engineering Value
The core of multiphysics joint review is to upgrade "viewing results" into "collaborative decision-making around results." Once this capability is integrated with the platform, it significantly improves cross-team communication efficiency and reduces subsequent traceability costs.