-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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
TACS Unsteady Interface #86
Conversation
…o unsteady_interface
- Updates to tacs unsteady interface for output viz and proc checks - Changes to fun3d interface to enable time dependent adjoint storing of states via body class
- Increase subiters in FUN3D - Output struct files to new directory
- Debugging forward unsteady accuracy issues (problematic mesh?) - Modifications to nlbgs driver unsteady_adjoint for updated body class
- Diamond wing example cleanup (note, example does not work due to poor structural mesh quality) - Added simpleSST wing example (fwd unsteady works properly) - Misc progress to full unsteady analysis
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would like to change the two example cases to use callback=None and thus the default funtofem callback now. But other than that everything looks really good. The only places that could potentially change something for the steady case is tacs interface iterate() function which contains time_step= inputs now. However, Rohan and I went through that code and it shouldn't change the steady case.
Can you make the changes regarding the callback before we merge? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is there a tacs_interface_unsteady_v2? Should this just replace an earlier tacs_interface_unsteady? Also, do we need/want to include the grid files for the examples in this repo?
- Remove funtofem callback -> Use default callback - Rename unsteady interface
- Fixing np.int issues for test - Adding callback tacs unsteady interface - Clean up examples directories
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. There is an assertion in the body class to check if the analysis_type is recognized, I think this is redundant since there is already a method implemented to verify the analysis type that is called during initialize_transfer. But it shouldn't hurt anything for now--should modify in the future to be consistent.
@@ -142,6 +144,8 @@ def __init__( | |||
|
|||
from .variable import Variable as dv | |||
|
|||
assert analysis_type in Body.ANALYSIS_TYPES |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't this analysis type verification here redundant since we already run self.verify_analysis_type in initialize_transfer()?
Work on the TACS unsteady interface
Example cases