Wolfram Kuss wrote: > However, CFD programs need a "watertight" geometry. I would > guess that far in excess of 90% of models are not. For example, > each edge needs to have two neighbour faces.
It's even worse than that. Real world aircraft performance is sensitive to all sorts of details that are simply unattainable for an amateur 3D model. Things like exact wing section shapes aren't available unless you have the original design plans and/or an actual aircraft to digitize. And I don't even want to think about the polygon counts involved in an accurate model. :) And remember that the aero modelling is still only part of the problem. You still need to get the mass distribution from somewhere, because it doesn't appear in the photographs. I'm not saying this stuff is impossible; people have been designing aircraft using CFD models for almost 20 years, and CPU cycles have never been cheaper. But it's a lot more work than just feeding c172.ac into a program and getting a working FDM configuration out the other side. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
