-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 166
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ENH: 3-DOF simulation #655
Comments
Could help us on this issue: https://github.com/werocketry/RocketFlightSim/tree/main/rocketflightsim |
For sure! What is the goal of having 3 DOF simulations in RocketPy? I think the best way to implement it would depend on the goal(s) of having it. |
The ability to choose between 6DoF or 3DoF simulation modes allows users to simulate without requiring extensive data, such as the rocket's inertia. This makes RocketPy useful for preliminary design phases, where only basic parameters like mass and drag are needed to estimate the rocket's apogee, without concern for stability. This feature will need to undergo testing, but we believe it could become a valuable tool, enabling RocketPy to support the rocket's development process from initial design to launch. |
ENH: adds 3 DOF simulation capability to rocketpy.Flight. *ENH: added "u_dot_3dof" for "solid_propulsion" mode *ENH: adding "u_dot_generalized_3dof" for "standard" mode (still incomplete) *ENH: new parameter "simulation_mode" for swtiching between 3 dof and 6 dof *ENH: updated conditions for "__init_equations_of_motion" *ENH: 2 new example files have been created to test 3 dof model "test_bella_lui_flight_sim" and "test_camoes_flight_sim"
Allow RocketPy to run a point-mass simulation (3DOF).
Important aspects of this issue:
equations_of_motion
argument in the Flight class constructor.Rocket
object with both 3DOF and 6DOF models so we can easily compare the models.Optionally, one may create a new FlightClass, in case you find it easier. However, I don't really appreciate this approach. I think the "giant Flight class with different options" may be a better option.
Please read the thread below to achieve a better understanding!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: