Negative pointmass is calculated
MariuszXC opened this issue · 5 comments
I'm submitting a ...
- bug report
- feature request
- support request => Please do not submit support request here, see note at the top of this template.
Describe the issue
A negative pointmass Payload is calculated with a comment (in output file):
- in web aeromatic: "- xxx LBS + full (35202 LBS) fuel should bring model up to entered max weight",
- in command line aeromatic: "- xxx LBS should bring model up to entered max weight".
This should not happen, because a negative mass is:
- not allowed by schema, and
- physically impossible.
What is the current behavior?
Relevant input data in my case was:
MTOW: 34473 kg,
EmptyW: 23288 kg.
Question about max. allowed fuel mass is not asked.
As a result negative pointmass is calculated (which is bad).
What is the expected behavior?
I would expect to be able to enter maximum allowed fuel capacity (in LBS or kg).
As it is now, aeromatic makes an assumption, which produces bad result.
What is the motivation / use case for changing the behavior?
Better user experience :)
Please tell us about your environment:
- Linux (Ubuntu 22.04)
- AeromatiC++ version 3.3.20
- https://jsbsim-team.github.io/aeromatic/ (as currently available)
Other information
If so requested I can provide full input data used, to help replicate this issue.
Full input data would be welcome as I don't see this behavior on this data alone.
I 'm only able to reproduce it if I switch the values for max weight and empty weight.
It has been a while (almost 4 months) since I submitted this report, so I'll have to check if I still have my notes about full input data. If not, I'll try to re-create the issue. Sorry about that, but it's been a while before you asked..
No problem, at least it triggered me to make AeromatiC++ more robust.
For one I switch max weight and empty weight is the later is larger than the first and it doesn't crash with a segmentation fault anymore if not a single entry is filled in.
If your problem still exist I can fix it. And then I'll d another pull request.
The PR #860 has just been merged.
Thanks @MariuszXC for the bug report and @ermarch for the bug fix 👍