Gerasimos Chourdakis

> Yes. So no tangential traction is possible here. I don't know if it's a CalculiX limitation or something else. I don't know if CalculiX has any such limitation. Maybe...

> > I tried running the perpendicular flap, but it looks like we need to consider updates based for v2.20: > > ``` > > * With v2.19 and this...

I assume that the branch https://github.com/precice/calculix-adapter/tree/i9 refers to this issue. Should we still keep it around? Is this issue still relevant?

This issue is still valid with the adapter 2.19.0. Easy to reproduce: get the perpendicular-flap tutorial and, in `flap.inp`, replace: ```diff *DYNAMIC, ALPHA=0.0, DIRECT - 1.E-2, 5.0 + 3.E-3, 5.0...

> Roughly speaking, in terms of data, it should be sufficient to have checkpoints "go back deep enough". Important to ensure here, is that checkpoints should only be written on...

Maybe this issue needs a bit more explanation. Here the user specifies the C and Fortran compilers to use: https://github.com/precice/calculix-adapter/blob/7aff819ea2ab4d20ee16d345acaf932e54dc917b/Makefile#L53-L63 But later these are overriden unexpectadly with `g++`. This could...

I am not sure I understand the solution. Why store a checkpoint in explicit coupling? Maybe you can extract only the relevant bit and call it always, independent of the...

No, because older compilers will complain that they don't know the flag. Already fell into this trap before. :see_no_evil:

The adapter now works with SU2 7.5, but we of course should still update it for SU2 8.

Going with "only supporting one interface" is perfectly fine, it is a design decision. > Do you have a use case for the fenics adapter with several coupling interfaces? Use...