It's called parametric modelling, and many CAD software use a parametric kernel (solver). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design
Is this somehow different? Please explain
Is this somehow different? Please explain
There's definitely ways to make this sort of model in something like Solidworks through the use of a variables interface that interacts with the drawing dimensions. Though it can't do any sort of fast optimization with the physics relations. What's happening here is a guaranteed global optimal design is being returned for a given set of inputs and objectives in a few seconds.
The property of getting a guaranteed optimum is something that arises from setting the design problem up as a geometric program. You won't always get a solution (for example, a certain size quad has a minimum prop diameter). Though if you do, it is guaranteed to be optimum because the problem is convex as outlined here: https://gpkit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/gp101.html
Also, conflicting objectives are naturally traded off until you find a Pareto optimal solution. Using geometric programs lets you balance conflicts in a design quickly. This is why they are super useful for aerospace applications, where you are always looking at a tradeoff between weight and at least one other variable.
By varying the weights and re-running, you could identify a set a solutions on [convex regions of] the Pareto front.
if you want to get somewhere with this, you should consider the engineering work flow. usually there is a conceptual/design phase that consists of a lot of photographed whiteboards, physical mockups, Matlab, even Mathematica Notebooks if you're like that. Or actually, some cfd and multiphysics fem modelling if you are serious about your flying objects.
You seem to fit into this chaos sonewhere, but I wouldn't quite know at which point I should use this. After all, cad models are always parametric until you start adding all the details, and actual physics modelling even on a xflr5 level goes well beyond this.