>the premise in the question is that that the asker is already in a position to start using it
That's an incorrect premise. The asker is clearly not in a position to use an off the shelf CFD package because they don't have the solid basis in fluid mechanics required to interpret the results.
I think maybe you/the asker are thinking of CFD like a tool that simulates fluids. That's not what it is. It's a set of approximations which, sometimes, are applicable to specific circumstances. Even LES, the most general tractable model, requires you to make informed assumptions about the boundary conditions.
> I love how you sneak the word "merely" in there, when for people like me, and presumably the asker, this would be a Herculean task
I'm sure building a physical prop would be challenging if you had no experience, but it is the sort of thing a lot of people can learn from Youtube and do in their garage.
That's an incorrect premise. The asker is clearly not in a position to use an off the shelf CFD package because they don't have the solid basis in fluid mechanics required to interpret the results.
I think maybe you/the asker are thinking of CFD like a tool that simulates fluids. That's not what it is. It's a set of approximations which, sometimes, are applicable to specific circumstances. Even LES, the most general tractable model, requires you to make informed assumptions about the boundary conditions.
> I love how you sneak the word "merely" in there, when for people like me, and presumably the asker, this would be a Herculean task
I'm sure building a physical prop would be challenging if you had no experience, but it is the sort of thing a lot of people can learn from Youtube and do in their garage.