Closed MateusStano closed 2 months ago
Nice one.
Let me make a question, why not creating a Rocket.total_mass_flow_rate
in the Rocket class and then accessing it in the u_dot_generalized
? .
This would allow for a better readability in the flight class, plus it would allow us to access the mass flow rate directly from the rocket object.
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 72.88%. Comparing base (
61bf4d7
) to head (6b26f61
). Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
More questions:
Let me make a question, why not creating a
Rocket.total_mass_flow_rate
in the Rocket class and then accessing it in theu_dot_generalized
? .
Sounds like something nice to have. Added it in https://github.com/RocketPy-Team/RocketPy/pull/585/commits/8ee2c95f6961e94f93ef569303588c643647778f
Pull request type
Checklist
black rocketpy/ tests/
) has passed locallypytest tests -m slow --runslow
) have passed locallyCHANGELOG.md
has been updated (if relevant)Description
If a simulation is using the new EOMs and has a time node at the motor burn-out time, an outlier acceleration value might be calculated:
This is due to the second-order differentiation of
rocket.total_mass
blowing up due to numerical errors. Swapping this tomotor.total_mass_flow_rate
gives the following:This makes
u_dot_generalized
more similar to the old udotBreaking change