Open tkuchida opened 9 years ago
I like where this is going. Why not go straight to Muscle including the slots for its submodels (e.g. its concrete MuscleActivationDynamics?). Otherwise we are going to duplicate for Millard, etc... Also a secondary point, I don't think people are going to figure out what ZerothOrderMuscleActivationDynamics
means. NoActivationDynamics
or something along those lines may be clearer?
Why not go straight to Muscle including the slots for its submodels (e.g. its concrete MuscleActivationDynamics?).
Sounds like a good plan, though that will be a big job since it will affect all muscles.
NoActivationDynamics
or something along those lines may be clearer?
I propose NoMuscleActivationDynamics
so we have {NULL|No|FirstOrder}MuscleActivationDynamics
classes.
The unspecified case would default to NoMuscleActivationDynamics
, so there wouldn't be a NULL MuscleActivationDynamics model case.
Also
I propose NoMuscleActivationDynamics
:+1:
The unspecified case would default to NoMuscleActivationDynamics, so there wouldn't be a NULL MuscleActivationDynamics model case.
I meant that the abstract class would be named MuscleActivationDynamics
and all concrete classes would be named SOMETHINGMuscleActivationDynamics
.
@tkuchida Do you still want to complete this (or a subset of the items in the checklist) for OpenSim 4.0?
@jenhicks This checklist isn't on the critical path to a 4.0 release, but it will need to be done to support upcoming work extending the muscle models (the timeline and distribution of labor isn't yet clear).
Potentially related: bugs in Thelen2003Muscle: https://github.com/opensim-org/opensim-core/issues/687
MuscleActivationDynamics
as a subcomponent of Muscle.MuscleFirstOrderActivationDynamicModel
(replaced byFirstOrderMuscleActivationDynamics
).ZerothOrderMuscleActivationDynamics
toNoMuscleActivationDynamics
.MuscleFixedWidthPennationModel::clampFiberLength()
from muscle models.