performanceRequirements: occurence and choice between missionUID and pointPerformanceUID?

[MarAlder]

Does the ability to define multiple performanceCases as well as multiple pointPerformanceUIDs open up an ambiguous approach to data definition because referring to a new pointPerformanceUIDs should open a new performanceCase?

Furthermore, should there be a choice between pointPerformanceUID and missionUID or are there reasons to refer to both at the same time?

maybe interesting for: @HHOPs, @ErwinMoerland, @sdeinert

[ErwinMoerland]

Does the ability to define multiple performanceCases as well as multiple pointPerformanceUIDs open up an ambiguous approach to data definition because referring to a new pointPerformanceUIDs should open a new performanceCase?

Furthermore, should there be a choice between pointPerformanceUID and missionUID or are there reasons to refer to both at the same time?

Maybe this might answer both questions at the same time:

For the pointPerformances to be considered, a specific state of the aircraft is needed. Within the <pointPerformanceDefinition>, there is a choice element to define at which part of the mission the point performance should be considered:

<segmentUID> --> at the end of indicated segment of the mission as defined in performanceCase
<massFraction> --> at the defined massFraction within the mission as defined in performanceCase (mCurrent/mTO)
<fuelFraction> --> at the defined fuelFraction within the mission as defined in performanceCase (mFuelCurrent/mFuelTO)

so, for each pointPerformance to be considered, a reference to a mission is needed to be able to determine the state of the aircraft (mainly its actual weight). Since regularly multiple pointPerformances are considered for the same part of a specific mission, multiple pointPerformanceUIDs are allowed in conjunction with a single missionUID.

What could be done for a more clear definition:

create a choice between pointPerformanceUIDs and missionUID within the performanceRequirements indeed and in exchange for this add a reference to the missionUID next to the aforementioned three choices (segmentUID, massFraction, fuelFraction) within the pointPerformanceDefinition itself. This seems a more clean approach, since this link should be vehicle-independent.

what do you think?

[MarAlder]

Ok, thanks for your explanations!, so you propose the following solution if I understand correctly:

As the missionUID can be derived from the segmentUID (and thus to provide inconsistency at this point) we could also implement a solution like this:

From a non-expert's point of view, I could also imagine that the coupling between point-performances and a mission is feasable to be treated vehicle-dependet (for a given vehicle it is required to fulfill a number of vehicle-independent pointPerformance definitions with respect to a vehicle-independent mission definition). Then the only change would be to make the missionUID obligatory in pointPerformanceCase.

Please let me know your preferred solution and have a final look at the occurences before we close this issue.