- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
No problem, but sorry for the watermark. In the next days I'll post other pictures with a different rendering engine (less sharp but without watermarks). I have sent you the STL and STEP of that model: feel free to use them.julien.decharentenay wrote:Thanks. I hope it is ok for me to use the pictures generated and include them on the website. Chris, we should probably tweet them around as well.
Yes, it is an early version, but it's the only one I've simulated untill now.MadMatt wrote:Nice one Matteo. Very early version then, I see no mirrors and cooling outlet? I like it, it looks good I hope it will inspire other participants!
Yes, the idea was to obtain a covered wheels F1.MadMatt wrote:I see! As I told you it is a nice base that you have got here. I like the exhaust, looks a bit like the Zonda R (in a way) or the old F1 cars from the 1960s with the high exhaust straight horizontal tubes.
Is there are way I could be used to do the simulation work without being able to look at other people's design?julien.decharentenay wrote:There is a number of software to install. If they are not installed (or not installed in the right places), you will receive an error when running OCCFD. The list of software is available at: http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallen ... -click-cfd.Sabino wrote: Ok, i havent tried it yet cause i need to install a list of other software right? and why did you (its your software right if i read correctly?) go for 2 million cells max? and while were at it is there a vast difference between ie. 20 million cells 50 million cells and 100 million cells results?
It is roughly around 2 million cells. The reason is that OCCFD is focused on the KVRC challenge. As we (organiser of the challenge) are running the CFD simulation on the submitted cars, we need to keep an eye on how long these take (and hence cost). So it is a trade-off between mesh size and time/cost... 2 million seems around reasonable, as it enables as a resolution of around 8mm at the body and 4mm at the wings...
I could look at a as refined as you can option...
I'm afraid I haven't had the time to make the changes I wanted to - I've had some other stuff to attend to so there are a few KVRC things I'm behind on. I'll make available the previous version (not legal to the current rulebook) once I've checked with Julien that the format and scale is correct, so there's a example of what the submitted STL files should look like as far as scaling, splitting of parts, etc.RicME85 wrote:How is the updating of the KVRC test car going Chris?
Most likely we won't be supplying these this year as we want to shift the emphasis away from fine-tuning the setup every round, and more towards having a high-downforce setup and a low/mid-downforce setup. The high-DF tracks will all be similar in characteristics, around the level of Monaco from 2014. The first low/mid-DF round will be non-championship, and the following rounds all of a similar drag/DF target, so this should give you some input on the optimum setup for those rounds. There might be some more we could do here, but detailed drag/DF/laptime charts like in 2013/2014 are unlikely.variante wrote:BTW How about giving us track charts like last year: they're essential to tune DF/drag, especially on such a new formula.
Are they really needed? I wouldn't be very happy to see those changes make the concepts on my car useless, forcing me to start again from zero.cdsavage wrote:Regarding the possible changes to the cooling inlets/outlets that we discussed in this thread a little earlier: I am thinking that it might be best if we made slight changes to this, only by tweaking dimensions and not by introducing any new rules. I'm aware that it's getting quite late to be making changes, so I'll aim to make a final decision on this in no more than a week.
I agree this was a problem last year, so to avoid this we want to reduce the importance of round-by-round setup changes on results. Providing the charts doesn't really help achieve this. Only those with the resources to perform many repeated CFD tests have the ability to actually make use of these charts and find the optimum setup.variante wrote:About the charts...i've followed the discussion and i agree on the choice to make everything more "accessible", but the problem here is another one: the formula we've adopted is totally new, the tracks are unknown and the CoG is not clear; moreover: the downforce levels reachable by these cars are enormous and thus the ideal DF/D is even more unpredictable.cdsavage wrote:Regarding the possible changes to the cooling inlets/outlets that we discussed in this thread a little earlier: I am thinking that it might be best if we made slight changes to this, only by tweaking dimensions and not by introducing any new rules. I'm aware that it's getting quite late to be making changes, so I'll aim to make a final decision on this in no more than a week.
Result of these uncertainties? I'm not even sure if i'm going to place a rear wing on my car...
Do you remember what happened even last year, when all the charts were provided? Half of the grid with the right configuration, the other half with a random and awfully wrong set up. I fear this year we're going to face the same fate.