Frequently Asked Questions#

A collection of frequently asked questions and their answers.

How should I report issues?#

Issues with pyansys such as bugs, feature requests, and documentation errors can be reported on the GitHub page as new issues.

If you wish to ask more open-ended questions or wish to pick the brains of the community you can visit the Discussions section of our GitHub repository.

What are the pros and cons of pyansys vs Ansys ACT?#

It depends on your pipeline and software approach. Ansys Act is a workbench dependent approach where extensions are built from within the ACT App Builder and then run from within Ansys Mechanical. If you intend to vary parameters, you’ll then need to use Ansys optiSLang to vary those parameters and batch your solutions.

The main advantages that PyAnsys has over Ansys ACT are:

  • Tight integration with python tools and open source modules alongside Ansys software.

  • Scripts are written in python. ACT uses .net and you can call IronPython, and potentially other tools available within Ansys Mechanical.

  • Being outside of Ansys Mechanical means that you can call our application workflow without opening up the GUI for user interaction. Should you desire a GUI, you can create your own via PyQt, or just output plots via matplotlib or vtk.

  • It is compatible with modern Python (3), whereas ACT is only compatible with IronPython (Python 2)

The best approach will depend on your workflow needs and how you’d like to develop software.

I’ve heard APDL has been “deprecated” by Ansys, what does that mean for PyMAPDL?#

APDL isn’t going anywhere. In fact, whenever you call Mechanical Workbench, it’s generating an input file (look for “ds.dat”) that’s fed into MAPDL. However, what’s changed over the past several years is where the geometry, meshing, and post-processing is occurring. Geometry generation can take place within SpaceClaim or Design Modeler, and meshing is done using a variety of new and powerful meshers within Workbench. I can attest that these tools are far superior to the ones in MAPDL, but the biggest limitation to them is that they’re difficult to script (especially externally) and as a result there are still users who choose to generate geometry and mesh within MAPDL.

What are the main reasons to use this over other Ansys products like Workbench?#

There will always be tasks where it’s better to use one or the other. Workbench is great tool to rapidly prototype, mesh, set boundary conditions, and solve. It’s where a ton of development has gone there are many features that make it easy to run analyses. However, it’s limited by its IronPython scripting and you’re unable call multiple products at either a granular or high level or use packages such as numpy, scipy, pytorch, tensorflow, etc. PyMAPDL ties this in with MAPDL, that allows you to have a fully parametric workflow that leverages these machine learning tools or allows for advanced plotting with pyvista or matplotlib.

Script Restart#


Sometimes I have difficulty to terminate the simulation. I have to close python and open it again. I also need to clear all previous data such as the mesh. Is there a better way?

I am using:

import sys

Is there a better way?


Exiting Python should clear the solution within Python should do it since if you kill the original process nothing should be in the new python process. As for clearing out mapdl, it’s just mapdl.clear() or existing and restarting MAPDL.