For dynamic analyses i have sometimes on valve mass on discret points (nodes).
Rigid mass input distribute the mass to the two rigid nodes in dynamic analyses.
Thats not what i like do.
When the User the Rigid element make very smal with a additionel node is a good possibility, but this is long winded.
You can maked better with mass input on node ?

At the moment, you can do this by going back to the piping input, and using the "break" command to break up your rigid into smaller elements.

When Version 5.00 is released, you will have an option in the dynamics to use a "consistent mass matrix" instead of a "lumped mass matrix". This will accomplish what you want without changing the model.

Sorry, my last post was not clear what i mean !
In the static input,if you have a rigid mass, then Caesar this mass distribut on two nodes to the rigid element when you have after a dynamic run.
When the valve construction is horizontial, then
the moment from this "rigidweight" is to small in weight loadcase? and the mass distrubation ist not exact in the dynamic case !

In the static run can the user give vertical force
(valve mass and construction)on the node and the moment ist now correct ?
In the dynamic run give the user then mass on nodes. Thats ok, but long-winded.

The user must the mass (kg) transform in force (N)
and one input (mass) two time input (force "static input" and mass "dynamic input")for a exact massmodel in static and dynamic.
You can not a simpler input methode make in Caesar ?

"Forces" do not transfer into dynamics, since these are assumed to be "loads". Only "masses" transfer into dynamics.

I'm not sure I understand your problem with the rigid valve. The weight (mass) is assumed to act at its two node points. If there is an additional eccentric mass(say an actuator), use a dummy (weightless) rigid to offset to the desired location, then use a short rigid with the actuator weight. This way both the force and moment will be correct, and everything will transfer into dynamics.