structural analysis software evaluation

huangyhg

structural analysis software evaluation....
i am going through software reviews to decide on a new structural analysis package.  i have now narrowed to risa 3d, gt-strudl, and ram-advanse.
your comments on any or all would be appreciated.
thanks,
ron
i have used all 3 a good bit. my opinion on the order of user friendliness and speed of modeling:
1. risa
2. ram-advanse
3. gt-strudl
the one i would trust the most would probably be gt-strudl, just because i know it is vigorously tested by the developers. and it would be what i would use for a very complex model. for most simple tasks, i would use risa. not saying risa and advanse can't handle very complex models, i would just personally sleep better if i used strudl.
i don't know about the other two products, but, i've used risa 3-d for several years and it's fast and very user friendly.
dik
ron,
will you be using the code checking part of the program, or using it mostly for structural analysis?  last year i bought an analysis program with integrated code checking.  while i think the analysis part is very good, i'm not too impressed with the code checking.  
just thought i'd mention it.  it migth be a good idea to download a trial version, if you haven't already done that.
regards,
-mike
mrmikee...mostly analysis.  i do manual code checking.  since a large part of my analysis is for aluminum, i have to do code checks manually as none of these are integrated to the alum. assoc. requirements.
haynewp...glad to see that you've used all three and can offer a comparison opinion.  your point about the development testing is an important one, particularly since gt-strudl is now done by the guys at ga. tech., and alumnal competition aside, it's an excellent school and proving ground.
dik...thanks.  the direct experience in practice helps me make my decision since i know all of you are good at what you do.
jae uses risa also and is pretty high on it.  he offered his opinion in a subset of another thread we were discussing.
yup - i would probably agree with haynewp's order - although i've used ram - i've not seen or used ram advanse as its fairly new....we already had risa so didn't feel compelled to look into it.  gt strudl goes way back - i used to use a form of it as "mcdonnell douglas strudl-pro" prior to them merging.  i would think it possible that gtstrudl might have a deeper array of analysis features within the program but i'm not sure.  
jae...thanks.  based on your experience with risa, i have it ranked no. 1; however, i was contacted by bentley systems after i request some additional info on staad-pro, and they suggested i look at ram-advanse.  i did and threw out staad-pro.  i've used staad and a variety of others over the years.  ram and risa have similar capabilities.  from both demos, it appears that ram's reporting features are a bit more flexible while risa's modeling features appear to be easier to use.
some 10 years ago, we modelled a truss bridge for a multi modal analysis of a truss bridge.  i modelled it in risa and a colleague modelled it with gt strudl.  in the end, the answers were identical, but risa was much easier and faster to work with.  also, risa found instabilities in the model that gtstrudl overlooked.
i used risa 2d over eight years ago and really liked it at the time.  what i liked about it was the fact it was so user friendly.  
the firm i currently work for designs and fabricates heavy timber system.  we use ppsa with a lot of custom modifications.  we have been looking at updating our software  but have not come across a system which can model pitched and tapered curved beams and check them against the current code.
i did look at some of the software from eagle several years ago.  the problem i had with their program was that it was cad based.  being from the late slide rule era, early calculator era, i have always worked with programs where you imput the  coordinates of the structure.  in the past risa was very efficient at allowing you to entire information in a column and copy that down the column.
since looking at the eagle software i have learned enough about cad to work with it. so today i probably would not find a cad based program as cumberson as i did in the past.

i use risa now but i used to use ram advanse.  i also have experience with staad, sap and strudl.  for most day to day task risa is by far the winner.  like the above mentioned strudl is best for complex design.  comparing risa and ram advanse, risa is by far the winner.  what i like most is that in risa you can easily just do general analysis.  with ram you have to actually build your shape in their database before you can use it.  (at least thats the way it used to be.)  with risa you can just plug in the properties, run the analysis, and it will tell you that it can't do the code check.  i also feel that the support at risa is far better than ram.  you can also check general structural dynamics much easier in risa.  jmho
i've found support for both risa and ram to be excellent.