hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • State Not Answered
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 254 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Using an MF6.2 Model?

damianh
O Learned Denizens,
 
I have, through a confluence of mellifluous events, acquired an MF6.2 model of a tyre I am interested in understanding on our vehicle. Hurray!
 
However, I expected the default interface built into ADAMS to be able to run the tyre - but it baulks and says it "can't find 'TNO_DelftTyre_Adams_interface::TYR815'". Boo!
 
The MF interface is clearly present and correct because it will run MF6.0 tyres I also have to hand. Hurray!
 
I'm obviously missing something but it's unclear to me just what...
 
Any clues?
 
Thanks in advance!
 
Damian
Parents
  • 0
    This is an easy one to answer. I'm trying to keep us to a "unified vehicle model" on the grounds that if one person has the correct yaw inertia, everybody should have it. However to reduce my workload I don't want parametric and literal models on the go.
     
    The run-times for co-simulation are much less distressing than they used to be so this is much more thinkable than it was when I railed against it in 2004.
     
    They want to compare some internal state estimators with the "real" values from the tyre to improve the estimator performance, which seems reasonable to me. I wouldn't wish the A/View postprocessor on anyone that I liked, so I don't mind.
     
    It's come out simply in the end:
     
    variable modify &
      variable_name = .test.MATLAB_ADAMS_Plant.output_channels &
      object_value = .test.wheel_0.lateral_slip_angle_iso
     
    I have learned a bunch of other things about putting a VPG tyre into a model along different paths, but that's for another thread...
Reply
  • 0
    This is an easy one to answer. I'm trying to keep us to a "unified vehicle model" on the grounds that if one person has the correct yaw inertia, everybody should have it. However to reduce my workload I don't want parametric and literal models on the go.
     
    The run-times for co-simulation are much less distressing than they used to be so this is much more thinkable than it was when I railed against it in 2004.
     
    They want to compare some internal state estimators with the "real" values from the tyre to improve the estimator performance, which seems reasonable to me. I wouldn't wish the A/View postprocessor on anyone that I liked, so I don't mind.
     
    It's come out simply in the end:
     
    variable modify &
      variable_name = .test.MATLAB_ADAMS_Plant.output_channels &
      object_value = .test.wheel_0.lateral_slip_angle_iso
     
    I have learned a bunch of other things about putting a VPG tyre into a model along different paths, but that's for another thread...
Children
No Data
© 2025 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement