-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Application fixes #80
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
eef0694
to
a64075d
Compare
@jtgrasb the moordyn test is now passing here too! The mooring matrix case is what fails the mooring test now |
I ultimately chose to fix the passive yaw test by replacing the results that our regression test compares against because:
@dforbush2 Let me know if you disagree with this approach |
I do not disagree. I opted for spline in this case because it allows the specification of the extrapolated value (or something like that?) that linear does not...and I would like to have the ability to consider a fixed/zero'd out set of hydrodynamic data beyond a certain extent. This facilitates runs where the range of motion is known a priori by making the required range of BEM data smaller.
From: Adam Keester ***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 2:32 PM
To: WEC-Sim/WEC-Sim_Applications ***@***.***>
Cc: Forbush, Dominic Dean ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [WEC-Sim/WEC-Sim_Applications] Application fixes (PR #80)
I ultimately chose to fix the passive yaw test by replacing the results that our regression test compares against because:
* the passive yaw results are identical when using the previous linear interpolation instead of the current spline interpolation.
* the current difference in results is extremely small. The regression test currently only allows a zero tolerance, which is likely more stringent than is warranted.
* The spline vs linear interpolation in bodyClass.irrExcitation is the only source of difference, and we could argue this method is more accurate to interpolate against anyways
@dforbush2<https://github.com/dforbush2> Let me know if you disagree with this approach
-
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#80 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHF2G7HZW5D3XPI6FBWOGK32MFNT7AVCNFSM6AAAAABVKKLMD6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDMMJRGA2TQMJUGU>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
@kmruehl assigning you for now since WEC-Sim/WEC-Sim#1401 is also assigned to you and it's for the same effort to resolve application bugs |
@kmruehl this is ready for review |
Tied to and should be merged after WEC-Sim/WEC-Sim#1401.
Fixes WEC-Sim/WEC-Sim#1400