http://test.openmodelica.org/~marsj/MSL … rsive.html

Thanks.  Looks like analog electrical works, but most of the rest is broken.  Ouch.  Is there a work plan or timeline of some sort as to when various things might get addressed?  Or does that mainly depend on graduate student priorities?

MultiBody also works (except Fourbar1). Note that e.g. EngineV6 does work, but takes too long for me to test in this script. When it is killed because of a timeout, we do not get any feedback on how many phases succeeded, so it looks very red.

So to summarize, most of Digital and all of Media, Fluid is off limits. And most of the other models do work, with some exceptions (some of these models are modelled in a better way in MSL32, but if you look at that report you'll see why we won't use MSL32 as a default anytime soon).

Thanks for the explanation, Martin.

So, why is the 3.2 version so red with respect to MultiBody, while the 3.1 version is so green?  What needs to be done?  Is there anything an individual contributor could do to help with that?

Hi,

Because the gravityAccelerationFunction is replaceable in MSL32 and we don't handle yet replaceable functions called via the instance (component).
The call world.gravityAcceleration(...) is not even legal Modelica (maybe was added to the last Modelica specification, but I have to check), and we
used a hack to support it, which works in MSL31 but does not work in MSL32.

One of our developers (Per Östlund) works on a new flattening phase that should fix most of the issues with replaceable affecting MultyBody, Media and Fluid.
This is estimated to be available in 2-3 months.

Cheers,
Adrian Pop/

It was not standardized yet, Adrian. Not even in the drafts if I remember correctly.

Incredible, MultiBody was around for some years now and it used this unspecified feature from the beginning.
It should have been specified together with operators as they have the same call via instance thing.
Well, we'll support it anyway via Per's work in the near future.

Cheers,
Adrian Pop/

Thanks for all the info, Adrian and Martin.  I look forward to trying Per's work.

If the call to world.gravityAcceleration(...) isn't legal Modelica, shouldn't there be an issue in trac.modelica.org about it?  I just looked and couldn't fine one.

Thanks,
Bill

https://trac.modelica.org/Modelica/ticket/137

Thanks for the pointer.  Looks like a truly nasty bug.  The design meeting referred to is early May, isn't it?