CFD, as a science, spanning more than half a century, though considered "matured", still wrestles two major hotly controversial research issues: (i) mathematical models; and (ii) numerical algorithms. The internationally renowned CFD scholar, Professor Patrick J. Roache (former US Sandia Lab Researcher and Professor of University of New Mexico) vehemently preaches, " Numerical verification is to insure that we are solving the equations "right" or correctly via the appropriate numerical algorithms (in conjunction with correct matrix solvers, computer codes and the computer operating systems), whereas experimental validation is to insure that we are solving the right or correct equations or mathematical models properly predicting the Mother Nature in quest."

In this perspective, CFD is still (considered) an evolving and not a matured science, yet. Presently, most CFD users are still intrigued by this kind of seemingly trivial yet paradoxically complex, philosophical question: "Should this investigation, design or analysis adopt a compressible or an incompressible flow, or somewhere in between, as well as a multitude of considerably perplexing scientific-engineering features such a complex subclass of Turbulence?"

This question squarely rests upon the "correct" selection of a cogent mathematical model. The next, common, highly controversial question is: "Should I adopt Finite Difference, Finite Volume or Finite Element discretization method, or even something else out there available in the CFD research and literature more suitable but not incorporated in the existing CFD software?" This question involves the ever-agonizing, optimal selection of a numerical algorithm -- better (simplest coding), faster, more accurate, much cheaper (i.e., minimum CPU times and memories), more stabilizing, more robust, or any combinations thereof.

The answers to all the above questions and issues are ultimately contingent upon and determined by the breadth and depth of the user's CFD knowledge, training, experience and biased exposures. By and large, commercial CFD packages are "hardwired" to certain mathematical models and a single numerical algorithm, thus indeed stifling the versatility, flexibility, adaptability, and most of all, creativity, of not only CFD researchers but also various seasoned and novice CFD practitioners, modelers and analysts out in the user communities -- primarily in the design, consulting and industrial sectors.

In practice -- per investigation, design, analysis or even simulation -- scholars, researchers, modelers and analysts must make either a conscious or an unconscious choice as to selecting the "perfect" mathematical model or numerical algorithm, or both, to do the job right, which has been for decades stonewalled by most hard-wired public and even highly expensive commercial CFD packages.

Versat^© is specifically innovated, designed and built to effectively, efficiently and seamlessly address the above issues by completely shattering all these CFD shackles to allow all our future users and valued customers to freely and instantaneously customize all kinds of unique CFD software -- according to their own wisdom, judgments and discretions on a project or simulation basis -- with or without our professional consultations, because in the end of the day, this conglomerated choice merely boils down to strategically and technologically striking the delicate balances amongst predictability, accuracy and computing resources in terms of CPU times and memories. This accomplishment is definitely more an art than an exact science.