Open MatteoManaRWE opened 1 year ago
Thanks @MatteoManaRWE for raising this.
This does look like we are double accounting for whether or not the lattice legs are either round or square. I think we have 3 choices:
lattice_square_round_edges
and then for lattice_leg_is_round_cross_section
is False which is a contradiction.lattice_leg_is_round_cross_section
altogether. A consequence of that is if a triangular lattice can have a square cross section? I doubt it but should be considered.lattice_square_round_edges
and lattice_square_sharp_edges
and replace with lattice_square
as you are suggesting.Both options 2 and 3 are breaking changes so need to be considered carefully.
cc @abohara @kersting
I'm looking at the informations related to the mast geometry and in particular if the structure has members with sharp edges or round members. in the .json I found these two fields that could contain the info needed:
I think it is a replica of the same info in two fields "mast_geometry_id" ="lattice_square_sharp_edges" would always have "lattice_leg_is_round_cross_section" = False. "mast_geometry_id" ="lattice_square_round_edges" would always have "lattice_leg_is_round_cross_section" = True.
is that right?
in case yes I would suggest to modify the "mast_geometry_id" to "lattice_square" and reffer only to "lattice_leg_is_round_cross_section".