+1 as well. With the caveat that my experience was with an early version, I found it very frustrating and counter-intuitive to use. The examples presented seemed to show some powerful capabilities, but the learning curve was more of a "learning Mt. Everest", and the program appeared to be so forcibly "generalized" that doing any kind of rational airplane design process of the kind with which I'm familiar was an uphill battle. I'm sure it's come a LONG way since then - I still get e-mail updates on latest features, etc. - but I didn't find it useful so I haven't gone back.Nope. I enrolled to use it a couple of years ago, and dabbled a bit. The amount of work needed to get something useful (not just a sketch but some understanding of the aerodynamics/forces that would be at work on the airplane under various flight regimes, the expected performance, control and stability issues, etc) definitely did not seem like a good exchange. Vortex lattice method--and trying to get the loosely "compatible" other programs to work together to do the work, looked like a lot of challenge and frustration, for a result that might or might not have been applicable.
But I'm sure some people love it.
Wow! May I ask what you have brewing there? We had a very interesting thread a while back regarding the potential for a small centerline thrust homebuilt, and it is still a concept in which I am very interested. We had a few candidate designs, and some numbers crunched via spreadsheet. More here: The Beetlemaster .OpenVSP is a fantastic program. It challenges you to be a good engineer... to further your knowledge of the "how and why" of aircraft design. It allows easy and quick reconfiguration of airfoils, cabin sizing, engine/prop placement, empennage sizing and a whole lot more.
This is my latest design using OpenVSP:
View attachment 73526
The work in OpenVSP was heavily augmented with calculations using both Raymer and Roncz spreadsheets and methodology from Bruhn, Niu and Noels.