yade-dev team mailing list archive

[Bruno Chareyre <bruno.chareyre@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Oh, quite nice agreement :-) I would expect higher discrepancy since
> ScGeom6D gets the angles with more precision.

I knew you never trusted incremental algorithms. ;-)

> I will check. What constitutive law you used with ScGeom6D, and with
> what parameters?

Constitutive laws are the same, and I set parameters in the script so
that constitutive parameters are the same too. The only difference is
numerical scheme.

> For me, research is to get interesting ideas to work (or find that they
> don't work, and see why not); if they do, why not use them? If people
> (including myself) use L3Geom, I will be pleased, if not, it can be
> deleted again. The code in Ig2_Sphere_Sphere_L3Geom_Inc is perhaps not
> the same as in ScGeom -- some parts are, and I was reading ScGeom code
> before, but I can say with clear conscience that I did not type a single
> equation without full understanding.

There are different research areas. Some want to know what is giving the
best approximation of x when a=x.b. Others want to know the consequence
of the assumption a=x.b.

Let's go back to yade development here. Perhaps it would be more
constructive to improve existing code (and if there is one line you
don't understand, just ask) than writing a full new set of
Ig_+Ip_+Law2's. It would give better cooperation than you writing from
scratch and deleting, and me strugling to get functional things out of
attic. Don't you think?

At the moment, it seems incremental rotations in ScGeom could make life
easier (and scheme a bit more robust, even if not perfect) for people
writing elastoplastic moment laws.

Periodic velocity shift (Vincent told me it was so tricky that nobody
would have been implemented it yet), plasticity, and other things, are
already in Yade. It would be a pitty to derive everything again.

Bruno