For: I would like to know if the idea, *Continuum Mechanics: Create a Rich 2D > Beam Solving System*, will be considered this time or not. > I would also like to know if it is better to >
- implement more features in the existing beam module - Or expand the continuum mechanics module to implement other structures like trusses and frames. In general, I think fixing and improving what is there is the best approach, especially for the new shorter GSoC period. Jason moorepants.info +01 530-601-9791 On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:01 PM Psycho-Pirate <prakharrsax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > I would like to know if the idea, *Continuum Mechanics: Create a Rich 2D > Beam Solving System*, will be considered this time or not. > I would also like to know if it is better to > > - implement more features in the existing beam module > - Or expand the continuum mechanics module to implement other > structures like trusses and frames. > > Due to the short coding period it won't be possible to implement both of > the above. > > On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 6:54:42 PM UTC+5:30 moore...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Sudeep, >> >> The topics related to sympy.physics.vector/mechanics are still >> possibilities. I will have time to mentor this summer if someone wants to >> do projects in this realm. >> >> We have not updated the ideas page yet for this year so those could be >> adjusted. Off the top of my head here are some things that I think are >> priorities: >> >> - Finish and enhance the work of Sahil Shekhewat so that models can be >> built with body and joint specifications (unmerged GSOC work). >> - Finish and enhance the work of James Milam (jbm950) that adds a >> FeatherstoneMethod. This is one way to increase the computational >> efficiency. One thing that is missing are nice implementations of spatial >> vectors and their operators. >> - Finish and enhance the work of Nikhil Pappu. The Autolev parser needs >> to be battle tested on some examples and bugs worked out. We need the tests >> in the private gitlab repo to actually be run by SymPy. (merged, but not >> polished GSOC work). >> - The Linearizer class was updated by James Crist, but I think it is >> effectively broken for more complex problems. This needs to be fixed and we >> need examples of it working for systems with holonomic and nonholonomic >> constraints. >> - Improve symbolic computational speed. Hard examples need to be profiled >> and the Python implementations improved, work on the core differentiation >> algorithms to maximize speed, and ensure that optional dependencies on >> symengine function and help for hard problems. >> - Develop a more comprehensive set of examples. I've started creating >> more and migrating threse to the PyDy documentation: >> https://pydy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#examples. One barrier to user >> adoption is the lack of examples that are clearly written that cover all >> types of dynamic systems. >> - I've recently discovered that for some problems the resulting symbolic >> equations are in a form that results in numerical error accumulation in the >> arithmetic. This is problematic and figuring out what this issue is and >> remedying it would be a nice improvement. >> - All of these PRs are hanging: >> https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Aphysics.mechanics >> and it would be nice to resolve them and get them merged. >> - If work can be done on PyDy, as has in the past, there are several >> things there too 1) support DAEs, 2) improve the visualizer in a number of >> ways, 3) migrate examples to jupyter-sphinx, etc. >> >> At this point, I'm generally in disfavor of proposing any new features or >> extensions to the library over fixing and improving what we already have. >> As you can see, we have several GSoC projects that were not fully polished >> off or were not merged at all. >> >> Jason >> moorepants.info >> +01 530-601-9791 <(530)%20601-9791> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 8:25 AM Sudeep Sidhu <sudeepma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While going through ideas , I found this idea , *Classical Mechanics: >>> Efficient Equation of Motion Generation with Python*, very appealing . >>> I wanted to know if this idea is outdated or is being considered for this >>> year's GSoC . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "sympy" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to sympy+un...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/7f6f725c-a4a0-4c11-895b-a4eb1e83f837n%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/7f6f725c-a4a0-4c11-895b-a4eb1e83f837n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/4dfce88f-13ac-4b8f-a295-e3db775ca74cn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/4dfce88f-13ac-4b8f-a295-e3db775ca74cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1Aj6jQRjEA4vKdgxrAA9LmAs%3DqrPk_H0_zw0dxLULFs9hA%40mail.gmail.com.
