You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The blade planform is defined with the following parameters: ['x', 'y', 'z', 'rot_x', 'rot_y', 'rot_z', 'chord', 'rthick', 'p_le']. In the old OpenMDAO they were nested inside a vartree, making it clear that all these parameters belonged to a planform definition. Now that vartrees no longer exist, the first version we did simply had the parameters added and promoted with the above names. While names like chord are self-explanatory x y z are not. so to be more unambiguous I propose that we start using prefixes for these parameters, so they're referred to as e.g. blade_ae:s and blade_ae:chord. The pf parameters discretized for the structural calculations will then be named blade_st:s and blade_st:chord.
The blade planform is defined with the following parameters:
['x', 'y', 'z', 'rot_x', 'rot_y', 'rot_z', 'chord', 'rthick', 'p_le']
. In the old OpenMDAO they were nested inside a vartree, making it clear that all these parameters belonged to a planform definition. Now that vartrees no longer exist, the first version we did simply had the parameters added and promoted with the above names. While names likechord
are self-explanatoryx y z
are not. so to be more unambiguous I propose that we start using prefixes for these parameters, so they're referred to as e.g.blade_ae:s
andblade_ae:chord
. The pf parameters discretized for the structural calculations will then be namedblade_st:s
andblade_st:chord
.Any objections? @mrosemeier what do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: