Quote:
The question I now ask is: Will the visual outcomes from tests in this (very inaccurate) tunnel mislead students, being a hinderance to their learning?
If so I'll quit while I'm ahead. I've not spent much money on it yet so will probably concentrate on getting my CAD skills up to scratch so I can do CFD instead.
|
I think it was Ghandi that said it isn't important what you do, but it's very important that you do it. Time to evaluate cutting your losses on the test section. But look very closely at aerohead's bullet points. He gives you everything you need to succeed.
Bottom line you've got to stuff north of 50hp through your test section. If you reduce scale (say to 1/18th) you bump up against transonic effects above 250mph.
Have you looked at the posts from
graysgarage? His techniques are better suited to your scale of operation.
The future is CFD. I can say this because of
OpenVDB, which is being incorporated into current versions of Blender. Animating smoke particles is possible, and the data structure can be queried in Python so extracting useful data should be possible.
Using OpenVDB wouldn't be like a wind tunnel because the tunnel part goes away. It's complicated but [sparse, shallow inverted binary trees, bit masking, template metaprogramming, blah, blah blah] TLDR memory and computational problems go away.
When it ships in August I want to get the
Beagleboard X-15. That should handle the 3D rendering handily; the problem is I suck at Blender.
