Nadyesz
when I replied to the original post I took great care not to be rude to Oaksdarcy, but tried to frame the response in such a way that my opinion was made along with encouragment to learn more before using fairly specialised software. I think that Oaksdarcys reply suggest that he [hopefully] did not think I was being rude and I hope that he is much better informed now after doing some research and reading.
There is a fine line to be trod sometimes on a forum like this between 'flaming' someone and passing on advice and experience we ourselves have gained from others [no one was ever born a stress engineer], but you must realise that most engineers who reply to posts here are doing so:-
1) out of some sense of community and pride in their field of work
2) to freely pass on accumulated advice they have gained to others in the enginering community in that spirit.

Some [like myself] will often answer posts as a way of stretching our own thinking, testing our understanding and probing the assumptions we use everyday. Nobody [well perhaps a couple, but certainly not me] know ALL the answers and often the person answering the question will learn more in the process of compling a thoughtfull answer than the person asking it.

Regarding your point. The software is completely subservient to the design code being used. It is only a means of doing thousands of calculations quickly. If you do not have fundamental knowledge of what your design code requires, you are not in a position to make any comments on the validity of the results. I do seem to remember a post where the esteemed Mr Luf [or Breen] made the point that 99.9% of code allowable is not nessecarily OK and 100.1% is not nessecarily un-acceptable. These judgements should be made with a full knowledge of the code requirements and intentions, the research that led to those rules and the engineering fundamentals that back all those up. Miss any one of these out and you are at best guessing if the results are safe or not. And by the way, by safe I do mean whether poeple could die because of your actions.
Caesar is a only a tool, and like all tools it still requires intelligent oversight by a thoughtfull user to achieve satisfactory results, and that user must have the nouse to know when to use another tool because he does not think the results are valid. That requires time, application and learning.

People are engineers and engineers wrote the design codes- not computers.