Closed MarAlder closed 1 year ago
Remark: In the following, I just want to give some initial ideas on how to revise the latest proposal. It may be subject to further changes and will be further discussed in a working group on 6 November. The latest implementation of the development
branch can always be found at dlr-sl.github.io/CPACS/.
I suggest going back to the old definition (as implemented in CPACS v3.4) and just extending the configurationDefinition
node with some new requirements:
We can, as before, create one or more configurationDefinition
elements that serve as base configurations, so to speak.
Note: We decided to rename the node from configuration
to configurationDefinition
to make it clear that this describes a possible configuration, not the IS state of the aircraft. This is consistent with missionDefinition
or pointPerformanceDefinition
.
The controlElements
continue to serve as a compilation of all components that can be set/adjusted/switched on/off on the aircraft. These include controlSurfaces
, landingGears
, engines
(in progress), systemArchitectures
(new in v3.5). Each of these components requires a node that translates the abstract controlParameter
into a physical state variable. In the new systemArchitecture
node this could be called controlDevices
(or controlFunctions
as in the chassis? Is that confusing?) to either enable/disable the whole system or just some connections. For the systems, I assume that multiple controlDevices
/controlFunctions
will be needed in the future, so I chose a controlDevices
container that currently only contains a state
function (open for renaming). This node gets a uID
which can be referenced directly as a controlDevice
or indirectly via a controlDistributor
(see above).
The analysis nodes then reference a base configuration via the configurationDefinitionUID
and directly the controlDevice
or controlDistributor
elements of the respective components. E.g:
So, basically, everything remains as it was before when it comes to the controlElements
😌 (just the renaming of configuration
-> configurationDefinition
).
@ChristianHesse, I'm not shure how we deal with cabinPressure
. Has this node ever been used? Could it also be realized via a controlParameter in the compartment
node or so?
Additionally, we should include energyCarriers
which are not defined by the controlParameter
. These are things that can be absorbed/refueled by liquids, gases or chemicals. Basic idea: Reference to a tank, reference to a predefined energyCarrier
and information about the fill level/charge status.
Third point: payload
. This summarises everything that the aircraft can be equipped with, e.g. passengers, cargo, medical equipment, military equipment, etc. This node is still a work in progress (see #725) and will probably not be ready for v3.5.
@ErwinMoerland, @HHOPs, @CLiersch, @rmaierl, @sdeinert, @jbussemaker, @marcengelmann, ...
This revision was approved at a dedicated developer meeting on this topic. It will therefore be implemented in v3.5.
Result of last stakeholder meeting: The
configurationDefinitions
node needs to be revised from what was presented in the v3.5-beta release.What was presented: