I am not sure if I understand you 100%. Just drop me an email and I can partially help you. Plots during run time are coming soon!
Actually there should be 3 new teams right behind CAEdevice and Variante, as on the video with results PurePower racing has penalty, and on the website not, which results in 5th place instead of 7th. (1:49.13 vs 1:48.05).LVDH wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 12:24Congratulations to CAEdevice, he took victory and is once more leading the championship. This might get boring you guys have to keep up. The interesting thing is that two new teams are right behind him. Variante will for sure also prey on him. I have updated the homepage, it is now good with tables:
https://mantiumchallenge.com/results-singapore-2019/
I like the idea of publishing the rake angle, just give me until next race to implement that.
Thanks!
Me too, the bloody thing isn't doing what I want. Wing's are about CzS = 0.2-0.3 lower than they should be.
Are your reference numbers produced by 2500 or more iterations? The solver used for the races has more iterations than the standard MVRC template. It does not affect the cars (as mine) that completely converge in less 2500 iterations.
I have to run the fast option which converges quite quickly. The difference between race and my tests was fairly small - cooling excluded but I've fixed the mesh on my cooling monitors now so hopefully that will be closer. So the problem isn't a difference my tests to race, but that the car I'm testing doesn't seem to be producing the results I'd expect. I added strakes under the front wing but they don't appear to be producing any sort of vortex. Now that could be the mesh fidelity in the fast option but it's undesirable to take that risk. I'm at a bit of a loss, but I guess fixing cooling would jump me more significantly up the table than adding downforce at the moment.
Yeah but if I can't run the other options I'm rather limited.CAEdevice wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 14:08Be careful with the fast option: it not only has reduced iterations, but also different mesh settings (base mesh size).
What I am not mastering yet (like Variante can do on the contrary) are vortices. I have problems with the rake too. Cooling is good, but it comes from my LMPx old cars.
Maybe it can help: this year I am not using all the CPU power I could use last year (I also need my PC for FEM simulations) and when I could not run a full simulation I obtained better (preliminary) results with custom settings (ex. base cell size bigger than "standard" but smaller than "fast") and with only 2000 iterations. The "fast" option is too far from the official one.jjn9128 wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 14:11Yeah but if I can't run the other options I'm rather limited.CAEdevice wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 14:08Be careful with the fast option: it not only has reduced iterations, but also different mesh settings (base mesh size).
What I am not mastering yet (like Variante can do on the contrary) are vortices. I have problems with the rake too. Cooling is good, but it comes from my LMPx old cars.
What settings are you using? Can you screenshot?CAEdevice wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 14:20Maybe it can help: this year I am not using all the CPU power I could use last year (I also need my PC for FEM simulations) and when I could not run a full simulation I obtained better (preliminary) results with custom settings (ex. base cell size bigger than "standard" but smaller than "fast") and with only 2000 iterations. The "fast" option is too far from the official one.
