Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

propagating filter order in valves #891

Closed
Mathadon opened this issue Feb 15, 2018 · 2 comments · Fixed by #892
Closed

propagating filter order in valves #891

Mathadon opened this issue Feb 15, 2018 · 2 comments · Fixed by #892
Assignees

Comments

@Mathadon
Copy link
Member

I sometimes reduce the filter order of valves from 2 to 1 to be able to use larger time step sizes with Euler. I currently override this parameter manually, however the filter is protected such that this leads to a warning. Therefore, I'd like to propagate the filter order to the advanced tab of the valve partial. Is that ok?

@Mathadon Mathadon self-assigned this Feb 15, 2018
@mwetter
Copy link
Contributor

mwetter commented Feb 15, 2018

@Mathadon
In general. propagating the order of the filter is fine. Maybe it would be clearer to put it on the "Dynamics" tab as all other filter parameters are there (and any tab other than the "General" are considered advanced?).

I do however wonder if you still need a filter if you use (fixed?) time step Euler. If your time step is a minute or two, the valve would already be halfway or fully opened between steps (if riseTime=120).

@Mathadon
Copy link
Member Author

I agree regarding the tab choice, I use 'Advanced tab' to refer to any non-'general' tab.

I mostly use the state to decouple algebraic loops so the actual behavior of the filter does not matter that much.

Mathadon pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2018
mwetter added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants