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.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to