Matthieu Ancellin
Matthieu Ancellin
You'll need to use an external software for that.
Is there anything that can be addressed in Capytaine regarding this issue? Maybe adding a `scale` method on meshes?
It could be a bug. I remember having some issues with phase on this kind of animations and tediously trying to check the phase conventions. I could have gotten it...
Good news: if both results can be reconciled with only minus and complex conjugation, it means it is probably just a matter of conventions. We need to figure out the...
(0, 0, 1) is up
Yes, there might be an issue there. Could you make some comparisons on a reference problem to be sure?
Note that I haven't thought in frequency domain for a while, so I'm not fully confident in my comments below. > So, the potential for unit amplitude oscillations (the ones...
>> Shouldn't the phase be opposite when using e^{-jωt} convention instead of e^{jωt}? > > It is: the modified response has increasing phase, while the original one has decreasing phase....
> It uses the convention e^{-jωt}, which I understood from the documentation to be the same as Capytaine's. The code is based on eigenfuction expansions. Ok, alright. > For now...
Yes, it is about the phase of the RAO computed by Capytaine (although animating the RAO might still introduce more issues...). I guess we need both: a careful writing on...