Changes

| [[EM.Tempo]]

|}

The table below compares [[EM.Cube]]'s computational modules with regards to their material variety:

| style="width:450px;" | PEC, homogeneous dielectric

|}

== Defining the Computational Domain & Boundary Conditions in EM.Cube ==

| [[EM.Ferma]]

|}

The table below compares [[EM.Cube]]'s computational modules with regards to their excitation source and lumped device types:

| style="width:250px;" | Simple passive RLC lumped elements

|}

== Defining Simulation Observables in EM.Cube ==

| [[EM.Terrano]]

|}

The table below compares [[EM.Cube]]'s computational modules with regards to their observable types:

| style="width:450px;" | Current distribution, far-field, RCS, S/Z/Y parameters

|}

== Discretizing a Physical Structure Using a Mesh Generator in EM.Cube ==

The accuracy of the numerical solution of an electromagnet problem depends greatly on the quality and resolution of the generated mesh. As a rule of thumb, a mesh density of about 10-30 cells per effective wavelength usually yields satisfactory results. Yet, for structures with lots of fine geometrical details or for highly resonant structures, higher mesh densities may be required. Also, the particular simulation data that you seek in a project also influence your choice of mesh resolution. For example, far field characteristics like radiation patterns are less sensitive to the mesh density than the near-field distributions on a structure with a highly irregular shape and a rugged boundary.

The table below compares [[EM.Cube]]'s computational modules with regards to their mesh generator types:

| style="width:450px;" | Wireframe and triangular surface mesh

|}

<p>&nbsp;</p>