High order mesh generation in 2D with pointwise

In 3d pointwise makes a block and workes with q1 to q4 with no problem. I tried 18.4 and 18.6 also 2022.2 version with Elevate stuff.

In 2d pointwise makes high order mesh?, is it available?

For 2d I could use gmsh but gmsh has no BC support, so i picked up pointwise.

To my knowledge yes in 2D pointwise supports high-order elements, however, are you facing a specific problem?

Thanks for the reply, well
I made 2d geometry in cubit, then exported as *.stp file.
Imported as ->Database to pointwise,
Then made 2d mesh also from ->Select Solver i have chosen gmsh
And selected ->Set solver attribute q4.

in 2d Just after export click this showed up like this no Elevation etc… And result is just ordinary mesh

in 3d just after export click this shows up like this Elevation degree etc…And result is ok

I tried this another pointwise with 2022.2 version 3d ok but 2d not… In 2022.2 version there is Elevate under Grid menu which let you select order stuff. Work just with blocks (means 3d) It means if you do not have block you cant see Elevate menu and cant go high-order.

I think this question might be best answered by Cadence or you could ask on the CFD online forum: Pointwise & Gridgen -- CFD Online Discussion Forums

As it is a bit beyond the scope of PyFR.

Thanks for the help,
weird thing is the 3d element has 2d faces and high order nodes are ok on faces of a 3d element in pointwise. Why cant handle 2d? it must be much more easy task.
Maybe i should write to cadence stuffes and if i learn something i will share here with you

by the way any other mesh tool for high order mesh and bc support?

Sadly i found this

Firstly i did not go detailed explanations related to Elevation, my bad.
I looked there and see

any other mesh tool for high order mesh and bc support?


Have you tried gridpro? They only support structured meshes, but do have high element support. No idea if they support 2D meshes.

But could you get away with making a 3D mesh that is one element thick in z? and then apply either periodic boundary conditions or slip walls?

I did not try Gridpro but i can check it.
I have 2d DG code for unstructured meshes, i will give a shoot the tip you gave about 1 element depth, thanks for this.

Actually i will go 3d at the end. Pointwise will work for me then, but now 2d is important for the research.

Maybe the companies does not care for 2d so much for industrial use or complex problems in research etc… so…

High-order mesh programs are not widely developed or known well compared to linear ones, maybe by the time they will reach to a considerable number.

I also think to work on gmsh by doing some painful BC addition to mesh file, like a postprocess for mesh file.

Think think, you find a link…


When this elevation feature was initially released in Pointwise, which I believe was back in 18.1R1, it supported elevation of elements on export only; though, elevation of 2-D grids was supported at that time. The feature has since been refactored. It seems a bit silly that they removed elevation of 2-D grids for its Gmsh, CGNS, and PyFR CAE exporters in more recent releases.

However, I don’t believe PyFR uses the shape points used in elevated Q2-Q4 meshes in its quadrature rules for defining solution points within any given element. Given this, you’re unlikely to run up against the same computational limits in a 2-D high-order simulation as you would in a 3-D simulation, so you might be just as well off using linear mesh elements in your 2-D cases; though, this may not be the case for the unstructured DG code that you have.

Even in 3-D meshes, you would like to limit curvature to only those elements in proximity to your boundary surfaces. Once your anisotropic elements reach isotropy in the farfield it’s probably best to switch back to Q1 or lower order mesh elements…

As far as I am aware Pointwise does not support high-order 2D grid generation. This is not a huge issue; all real world simulations of consequence are 3D, and for 2D meshes Gmsh usually does a reasonable job (since the geometries are so much simpler).

Regards, Freddie.