Stop 'tweaking' the rules, it just makes a mockery of the competition.
Save the changes for next year.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Unfortunately I can't see how to achieve this... The other issue is to put the framework in place to allow for the simulation to be conducted in an easy fashion. I will release later today an updated version of OCCFD with a slightly refined mesh - the mesh size at the wings will be 3mm and 6mm at the body. It is as fine I will be able to make it...MadMatt wrote:Is there are way I could be used to do the simulation work without being able to look at other people's design?
No problem Julien. And thank you for the mesh update, that's great news, I will give it a try!julien.decharentenay wrote:Unfortunately I can't see how to achieve this... The other issue is to put the framework in place to allow for the simulation to be conducted in an easy fashion. I will release later today an updated version of OCCFD with a slightly refined mesh - the mesh size at the wings will be 3mm and 6mm at the body. It is as fine I will be able to make it...MadMatt wrote:Is there are way I could be used to do the simulation work without being able to look at other people's design?
I was thinking about this and I reached the conclusion that If someone (let's call him "a") has not the possibility to run a simulation, he could ask MadMatt (or CAEdevice or "b") to run the simulation. They would have both an advantage: "a" would have the geometry checked/tested, and "b" could bring oxigen to his ideas looking at someone other car.julien.decharentenay wrote:Unfortunately I can't see how to achieve this... The other issue is to put the framework in place to allow for the simulation to be conducted in an easy fashion. I will release later today an updated version of OCCFD with a slightly refined mesh - the mesh size at the wings will be 3mm and 6mm at the body. It is as fine I will be able to make it...MadMatt wrote:Is there are way I could be used to do the simulation work without being able to look at other people's design?
Rotation of 0 would mean that the inlet surface is facing directly forward. Rotation 'upward' would mean that the surface now faces forward and upward. I think the phrase 'looking down the x-axis' could be interpreted in different ways, but when the left-hand side of the car is facing the viewer, rotation upwards would be clockwise.MadMatt wrote:When saying 10° downward and 20° upward, I am not sure what is your reference point. I will use simple words here because I want to be sure everybody understands, so when looking down the X axis, is it 20° clockwise and 10° anti-clockwise?
In maths I would say +10° and -20° (just to be clear).
It is a great idea... But it is between "a" and "b", which are both participants (ie not KVRC organiser). How can we (as KVRC organiser) facilitate this?CAEdevice wrote:I was thinking about this and I reached the conclusion that If someone (let's call him "a") has not the possibility to run a simulation, he could ask MadMatt (or CAEdevice or "b") to run the simulation. They would have both an advantage: "a" would have the geometry checked/tested, and "b" could bring oxigen to his ideas looking at someone other car.
I did the same last week asking MadMatt (thanks) to run a model of mine, and during 2014 I helped in the same way on of the partecipants.
Tool convert can not be found. We are unable to process the request further.
Backtrace: C:\Users\Richard\AppData\Local\Temp\ocrD764.tmp\src\mainOneClickCFDVehicle.rb:231:in 'block in checkTools'
I think if you use the latest version of ImageMagick it should work (at least its the version I've got and it works): http://www.imagemagick.org/download/bin ... 64-dll.exeRicME85 wrote:Im trying to look at OCCFD out of curiosity.
On the KVRC site it says ImageMagick-6.8.6-Q16, I cannot find a download of that specific name, everything I have found that starts ImageMagick-6.8.6 has another number before Q16. Which should I use?
Paraview - with version? I have seen mentions of 3.98 and 4.1 in this thread