Looking for feedback: open-source engineering simulation workflow layer
Hi,
I’m looking for technical criticism on an early architecture/RFC-stage open-source engineering simulation workflow 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.
I’m posting here because OSArch is one of the communities where open-source engineering workflows, interoperability, and tool integration are taken seriously.
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 on:
- Whether the “application layer” direction makes sense for open-source engineering workflows.
- What should be learned from existing tools like FreeCAD, Code_Aster, CalculiX, OpenFOAM, Gmsh, VTK, ParaView, and similar projects.
- What risks exist around geometry references, mesh regions, boundary conditions, and result management.
- Whether a solver-independent Core Model / Solver Adapter / Results Layer separation is reasonable.
- What would make this kind of project useful to real open-source engineering workflows rather than just another isolated tool.
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
