WAsP "module"
Up to Feature Requests
At the same time you will automatically get other people to "evaluate" your model by comparing with WAsP, which should be a good thing.
I don't really understand this. You can input the wind-flow from WAsP in WRG format.
As for the wind-flow model in openWind, its only there as a stop-gap measure. We don't recommend it. We're not interested in validating it or pushing it because we have better things in the pipeline. In any case we wouldn't want to validate it against something which we don't use. We validated our energy capture against the industry standard because it was important to us to start with a method that gave us the same results we were already getting. However, we are already moving away from that as we improve our methods on the basis of data from real wind farms.
Nick
I realize that you want to improve the model, and I think that is the best way to go too. I simply wanted it in order to minimize the work that has to be done in WAsP and/or WindPRO. Right now, OpenWind isn't verified and accepted, but WAsP is... like it or not, but as you now that's the harsh truth.
I expect you to use WAsP or Meteodyn or Windsim or MS-Micro to do your wind-flow or if you're really smart you'd buy one from AWS Truewind 
I see your point that it would be slick if there were wind-flow models seemlessly incorporated into openWind. I'll look into this. However, my priority just now is to get the output of various CFD models working in openWind.
In terms of verification, our wind-flow model will never be so. In the configuration in which it appears in openWind, it was abandoned in favour of models like WAsP and MS-Micro many years ago (we use it internally to interpolate a 3D grid of NWP output for which it eminently suitable).
However, the energy capture and wake modelling in openWind is already verified and accepted by financial institutions.
Nick