gravField as SysModel, Effector or Other

[kylenave]

In the spacecraft object there is an object defined as:

GravityEffector gravField;

The GravityEffector class itself is neither derived from DynamicsEffector nor StateEffector but rather it is a SysModel class. It isn't dynamically allocated by the scenario setup though, it is hard coded to be instantiated with the spacecraft object and it is never added to a task which means its "SysModel" interfaces are not automatically called. Spacecraft has to call them.

If we view GravityEffector as its own type of Effector then it probably shouldn't be derived from a SysModel.

Or am I not understanding this correctly and we SHOULD add it as a proper SysModel object and fix spacecraft?

Obviously the spacecraft object makes it work but I was hoping to understand the intent from the source.

[schaubh]

A benefit of the current approach is that each spacecraft controls what planet gravity fields it should consider. This way you can have a simulation with one spacecraft subject to only Earth, the other spacecraft subject to Earth and moon gravity. To me gravity is really an environment component, like magnetic field, atmospheric drag, etc. These are also not effectors.