# Discrepancy in Results between ccx 2.13 and ccx 2.17 Versions **URL:** \ **Category:** Uncategorized\ **Created:** [March 29, 2024, 11:39am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186 "2024-03-29T11:39:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bhavita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b782af/32.png) [@Bhavita](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Bhavita)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 11:39am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/1 "2024-03-29T11:39:04Z")
Hello, When I run cube inp file with ccx 2.13, I get the correct results. However, when I try the same file with ccx 2.17, the results differ. What might be causing this discrepancy? Additionally, I’m unable to download ccx 2.13 on Ubuntu. How can I resolve this issue? ccx2.13 ![MicrosoftTeams-image (3)](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/2/29647eb961d9bae8e2bfd0cc82e1bcb23d4ac0d0.png) ccx2.17 ![MicrosoftTeams-image (5)](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/free1/uploads/calculix/original/2X/9/9baab99a0829190e516707c81cd30d103be5b9dc.png) Thanks, Bhavita ---
**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 29, 2024, 11:43am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/2 "2024-03-29T11:43:56Z")
> [@Bhavita](#): > > cube inp file Is it some publicly available file or just your own model ? In the latter case, you should share it so that we can have a look at the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bhavita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b782af/32.png) [@Bhavita](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Bhavita)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 11:52am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/3 "2024-03-29T11:52:43Z")
Hello @Calc_em Here is link for inp file. [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vbtk4\_fmeJjwLdYtRoyHgMhkt0PrSXmH?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vbtk4_fmeJjwLdYtRoyHgMhkt0PrSXmH?usp=sharing) ---
**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 29, 2024, 11:59am UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/4 "2024-03-29T11:59:36Z")
When I submit it using the newest CalculiX version (2.21), I get the following error: ```auto *ERROR in checktemp: no final temperature defined in node 15 ``` meaning that you should add the temperature values for all the remaining nodes in the model under `*TEMPERATURE`. ---
**Author:** ![Bhavita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b782af/32.png) [@Bhavita](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Bhavita)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 12:09pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/5 "2024-03-29T12:09:32Z")
I have already used temperature card for all nodes is model like this \*TEMPERATURE Part-2, 201 \*MODEL CHANGE, TYPE=ELEMENT, ADD Part-2 \*\* Outputs → frd file \*NODE FILE U \*EL FILE S, E, PEEQ \*NODE PRINT, NSET=ConstraintFixed, TOTALS=ONLY RF \*END STEP \*\*---------------------------------------------------- \*\*------------------------------------------------------------ \*STEP, NLGEOM \*STATIC \*BOUNDARY, OP=NEW Set-Ground, 1 Set-Ground, 2 Set-Ground, 3 Set-TopLayer-3, 1 Set-TopLayer-3, 2 Set-TopLayer-3, 3 \*TEMPERATURE Part-3, 201 ---
**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 29, 2024, 12:16pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/6 "2024-03-29T12:16:27Z")
The error points to the first step - you should define temperatures for all nodes already there. They can be just equal to the initial temperature in some regions if you don’t want them to undergo thermal straining. ---
**Author:** ![Bhavita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b782af/32.png) [@Bhavita](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Bhavita)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 12:48pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/7 "2024-03-29T12:48:46Z")
@Calc_em Are you saying like this \*STEP \*STATIC \*TEMPERATURE NALL,200 \*NODE PRINT, NSET=Nall U \*EL PRINT, ELSET=Set-all S \*END STEP \*\*------------------------------------------------------------ \*\*------------------------------------------------------------ \*STEP, NLGEOM \*STATIC \*BOUNDARY, OP=NEW Set-Ground, 1 Set-Ground, 2 Set-Ground, 3 \*TEMPERATURE Part-1, 201 \*MODEL CHANGE, TYPE=ELEMENT, REMOVE Part-2 Part-3 Part-4 Part-5 Part-6 Part-7 Part-8 Part-9 Part-10 Part-11 ---
**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 29, 2024, 1:02pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/8 "2024-03-29T13:02:12Z")
Yes, it can be done this way. ---
**Author:** ![Bhavita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b782af/32.png) [@Bhavita](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Bhavita)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 1:04pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/9 "2024-03-29T13:04:42Z")
still incorrect results like earlier using ccx2.17 ---
**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 29, 2024, 1:31pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/10 "2024-03-29T13:31:03Z")
Try without `*MODEL CHANGE` first. If it works as expected then introduce model change to the model. It’s best to build complexity gradually. ---
**Author:** ![Bhavita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b782af/32.png) [@Bhavita](https://calculix.discourse.group/u/Bhavita)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2024, 2:03pm UTC](https://calculix.discourse.group/t/discrepancy-in-results-between-ccx-2-13-and-ccx-2-17-versions/2186/11 "2024-03-29T14:03:02Z")
Thank you @Calc_em, It’s working in ccx2.17 after removing model change card