Thank you for your changes @jura0207! Looks very good overall, just a couple of small notes (see my review).

However, I may have been too quick with posting issue #1970. I know see some logic as to why cluster scale was used before, instead of just cluster separation (in distance). If you change the diameter of the inner tube, and want the tubes to be touching, then always you have to update the cluster separation value...

Not entirely sure on what the best behavior would be (maybe add a radio button to switch between cluster scale/cluster separation?), I'll ping @hcraigmiller, @neilweinstock and @JoePfeiffer.

And by the way, RockSim functionality functions as expected.

Changes were implemented.

Thank you for your changes @jura0207! Looks very good overall, just a couple of small notes (see my review).

However, I may have been too quick with posting issue #1970. I know see some logic as to why cluster scale was used before, instead of just cluster separation (in distance). If you change the diameter of the inner tube, and want the tubes to be touching, then always you have to update the cluster separation value...

Screen.Recording.2023-01-16.at.00.45.00.mov
Not entirely sure on what the best behavior would be (maybe add a radio button to switch between cluster scale/cluster separation?), I'll ping @hcraigmiller, @neilweinstock and @JoePfeiffer.

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help a little. :D

Would adding something like:
clusterSeparation = clusterSeparation * (r / outerRadius); where r is new radius
in the ThicknessRingComponent.java in setOuterRadius fix this?
Or maybe better add a function that does that in case the cluster exists.
I'm not sure this is the right approach since this function is used in a lot of other places and both the scope and risk would be too big.

I'm thinking of a number of use cases for which either the old or the new could make sense. I think we do want that checkbox.

I do wonder what the semantics of "separation" should be -- to me, that should be the distance between motor tubes, not the distance between their centers (so a separation of 0 would have touching motor mounts). That would also eliminate the issue of needing to change separation with changes in motor tube diameter. Would that be reasonable?

I do wonder what the semantics of "separation" should be -- to me, that should be the distance between motor tubes, not the distance between their centers (so a separation of 0 would have touching motor mounts). That would also eliminate the issue of needing to change separation with changes in motor tube diameter. Would that be reasonable?

Sounds like a good idea. I would suggest adding radio buttons to switch between absolute and relative separation. For relative separation, I would keep the "1 == tubes touching", since that's the standard that OR uses right now. For absolute separation, 0 cm == tubes touching.

@jura0207 do you feel like implementing this? If this PR became more than you bargained for, that's also fine, then we can pitch in and finish it.

Superseded by #2269.