# Collected posts on analysis issues from CalculiX’s Issues on GitHub **URL:** \ **Category:** Analysis issues\ **Created:** [March 16, 2026, 7:10pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/collected-posts-on-analysis-issues-from-calculix-s-issues-on-github/3828 "2026-03-16T19:10:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Durbul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8dc957/32.png) [@Durbul](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Durbul)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2026, 7:10pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/collected-posts-on-analysis-issues-from-calculix-s-issues-on-github/3828/1 "2026-03-16T19:10:18Z")
This post contains several issues from the CalculiX GitHub repository that have been closed due to our new issue policy ( [Issue policy on GitHub · Issue #158 · Dhondtguido/CalculiX · GitHub](https://github.com/Dhondtguido/CalculiX/issues/158) ) and were transferred here. > > > Hello, > > I have 2 input files e\_5905.inp and e\_5906.inp. I am trying to run the…se files using Calculix linux executable. > I have noticed that when I run the e\_5905.inp file, it generates .sti and .dof files successfully. However, when I run the e\_5906.inp file, it doesn't produce these files. I'm curious to understand why this is happening. > > Attached are the input files in .txt format, as .inp format couldn't be attached. Thank you for your understanding > > \[e\_5905.txt\](https://github.com/Dhondtguido/CalculiX/files/14691285/e\_5905.txt) > \[e\_5906.txt\](https://github.com/Dhondtguido/CalculiX/files/14691286/e\_5906.txt) > > > See https://github.com/mrkearden/pressuretank > > 2D and 3D elements to Elmer, feen…ox, calculix 2.20 or 2.21, Abaqus > > There are some significant differences to other codes in eigen frequencies and buckling modes. > > Some of the the differences can be solved with newer versions of calculix > But also last stand by results png is unclear. > > https://github.com/mrkearden/pressuretank/blob/main/result%20tables.xlsx ---
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2026, 8:09pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/collected-posts-on-analysis-issues-from-calculix-s-issues-on-github/3828/2 "2026-03-16T20:09:53Z")
@Durbul If there’s a GitHub report with an example file, but no forum thread (it wasn’t required before, and many long-term users just reported directly on GitHub when a bug was obvious), then I would leave it there. I doubt there will be any additional action taken for these old issues here, and they will need to go back to GitHub anyway. So I think that the new policy shouldn’t apply equally to old issues. I would only clean up issues that are not bug reports or feature requests (such as information about various applications of CalculiX and 3rd party tools related to it) and maybe bug reports with no example files (I think that most have them, though). ---
**Author:** ![Durbul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8dc957/32.png) [@Durbul](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Durbul)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2026, 8:21pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/collected-posts-on-analysis-issues-from-calculix-s-issues-on-github/3828/3 "2026-03-16T20:21:52Z")
I’ll leave the existing bug reports (most of them have a minimal working example, so it’s easy to confim they are still relevant). But I’ll close and transfer those to Discourse (such as the two above) that are still possibly relevant, but not specific enough to serve as a basis for a concrete fix or implementation (for feature requests). I hope this makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![Calc\_em](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Calc\_em](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Calc_em)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2026, 8:28pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/collected-posts-on-analysis-issues-from-calculix-s-issues-on-github/3828/4 "2026-03-16T20:28:50Z")
Ok, thanks, this is exactly what I meant. Reports with attached/linked input decks are indeed easy to confirm and retest in a new version of CalculiX.