>> the main difference is that the contact stiffness kn and the ratio kt/kn are >> defined in the IP2 functor as indicated in the commit massage via MatchMaker MatchMakers is right, yet I'm not sure it is incompatible with defining parameters in materials as usual.
>> IMO, there is a potential of merging FrictViscoMat with ViscElMat. I vote for this! >> However, I >> wanted to commit this law so that we can see the advantage of using >> MatchMaker >> and IP2 functors between different materials. Ok. >> Last but not least I think we >> could probably split visco-elastic and capillary parameters. I didn't know they were all merged. A result of recent changes by Anton? It is easy to fix by inheritance, as in CapillaryPhys. >> Anyway, I am glad you asked because I see potential of improving on both >> sides. What do you think? My main concern is to avoid the increasing number of almost equivalent classes, thus it rang a bell when I saw a viscous contact law commited (which was obviously a duplicate for the most part). Thank you for suggesting improvements, now they have to be made ;), since we don't want duplicates in trunk. Something to discuss with Anton and Raphaël, it seems. Note that by starting an independant inheritance branch you lost the advantage of automatic time-step determination with GlobalStiffnessTimeStepper, which accounts for viscous effects only after YADE_CAST<ViscElPhys*>. Bruno _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
