However, I am not so sure about the multiscale capability ("subatomic through galactic").īRL-CAD has a powerful, customizable scripting interface How do these capabilities compare to commonplace commercial systems? I believe that by now pretty much every CAD package can make detailed realistic models. model objects on scales ranging from (potentially) the subatomic through the galactic, while essentially providing all the details, all the time. " That does seem to be a compelling feature for an organization such as ARL.Įxtensively detailed realistic models. The " overview" page on the Wiki states that due to its focus on solid modeling, BRL-CAD lets us "build objects with real-world materials, densities, and thicknesses so that analysts can study physical phenomena such as ballistic penetration and thermal, radiative, neutron, and other types of transport. It it still in active use for these purposes? Furthermore, why is BRL-CAD the primary solid modeling package, as opposed to a commercial solution? Is it because BRL-CAD is good at solid modeling specificially? states that it has been used to "model weapons systems for vulnerability and lethality analyses". government to help model military systems". Where specificially is BRL-CAD in production use right now? The contributors' guide says, "has been the primary solid modeling CAD package used by the U.S. I am not trying to be a "wiseguy" here, I am just trying to understand BRL-CAD better. I've taken a look at BRL-CAD's key strengths as listed on that page, and I still have a few questions. I am coming from much the same place as the OP.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |