A few questions were left unanswered on day 3 of the Capella days 2022 - please find below the answers. Thanks to the speakers from Saratech, Naval Group, and Politecnico di Milano for providing the answers!
Q&A by Michael Ali (Saratech):
Q:The python iteration that you talked about doing in Jypter… does that need to be done with each new Capella model. Or is the python code going to work with any new model?
The goal would be for the python code to parse any model into a table. In theory, it’s possible because all the information is available. In practice, I think it would take some time to cover all the combinations of features in a model.
Q&A by Guillaume Leleu and Emmanuel de Château-Thierry (Naval Group):
Q: Have you faced any limitation/incompatibility issues when using PVMT?
Not yet. We use it extensively to add characteristics per object type and only those by settings (main settings at the project level).
Q: What are the main differences between your cvs add-on capabilities with respect to P4C ones?
I do not believe they address the same needs, CSV add-on is meant to be the “Swiss-army knife” for input/output data to Capella but with the limitations to be “crude” and follows the KISS (keep it stupid and simple) principles to do not over-scope it. And it was also on purpose to develop it and release it as Open Source, for free usage to the overall Capella community to avoid the vendor-locked-in effect of being forced to use a specific software version to interoperate. CSV add-on is under ECPL license and does allow anyone to use it for open collaboration.
Q: How does csv converter compare to native Capella Mass Data Visualization .csv export function? Is it principally to enable data ‘import’ capabilities?
We like the Mass Data Visualization, and the export works well, but the limitation was not being able to have “formulas” within Capella to modify properties or names, long text, etc. CSV add-on can do it. They overlap but also complement each other. As soon as too many records need to be modified, CSV is more appropriate (at least for our usage).
Q: What FMI/FMU mechanism did you use in Capella to interface to Open Modelica?
We want Capella to remain what it is: a MBSE. On purpose, we do not want to have the multi physics simulation (also called functional simulation for us) to run within Capella as we already rely on on-purpose software for running these activities (Open Modelica, etc). The base principle is to be software neutral by using a well-known, established standard for interoperability: Modelica.
Q: Did you manage the configuration of model artefacts of configuration of the full model ?
Still an ongoing topic.
We mainly use Gitlab for all model versioning, including simulation models.
Q&A by Davide Bellicoso, Emanuele Tomassi, and Riccardo Rambaldi (Politecnico di Milano)
Q: From the mission analysis you have done, did you try to model the systems budget back into the design model?
We used the results of mission analysis to retrieve the requirements, both in terms of propellant and power budget. Therefore, the budgets I just mentioned (propellant, mass, power) have affected our system only under a requirement viewpoint, since we did not perform neither logical nor physical architecture on Capella.