NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
Thanks a second time, Bill Hibbard wrote:
Error was the wrong word. What i meant was, that an error in the visualized plane occurs and to ask if there is a possiblility to overcome or reduce it with the built-in functionality (Increasing the grid resolution doesn't work. I have tested a plane with 1,000,000 points and the problems are always there). My idea was also that this is a problem with the quantization and the no-data area. But this problem comes in place near the surface. The other problem is the error in the far field arround the no-data zone that is exemplary shown in the picture "error_in_cutplane.png" from my first email. The area with no data should not effect the quantization of this regions.Hi Olav,. . . This is no problem with flow rendering. With the Ball data this error in the far field occurs only one time. I have used the picture only for clarification. There are two problems. The cutplane arround the surface shows always errors (see error_in_cutplane_rgb.png).This isn't really an error - just the resampling quantization. Resampling to a GriddedSet the edges of the no-data area will always look gridded ike that. The only suggestion is to increase the resolution of the grid, to make the grid teeth smaller.
You are right with your assumption for the analytic plane. The idea to override the resample method comes in mind while it would be easy to calculate the range values at the same time as calculating the point values on the plane. The time consuming task is always finding the involved vertices, edges, and cells (tetrahedra, hexahedra, etc.). if i generate a grid in a pre-processing task and pass it into resample then the code has to make the search twice. Once by generating the grid and a second time during the resampling. the output will always a Irregular3DSet with manifold dimension = 2, that's right. But if i write it in a pre-processing task i would use the original data. I have to deal with structured multiblock grids and unstructured grids with any type of cell (tetrahedra, pyramid, prism, hexahedra, and a mixture of them). If i use the data from an Irregular3DSet this cells have first to be decomposed into tetrahedra that results in a large amount of cells. For hexahedra it is a factor between five and six (mostly = 6) for the cell number. Another reason is to present the user a grid view of the original data. Grid quality has a mayor impact on computing time and the accuracy of the result. I would like to do this work in a way that fits into VisAD, so that, if no law or contract restrict it, the code can go into VisAD under LGPL. At this point i have a little different question. Are there any Use Case diagrams available, to see the interaction between the diferent classes and methods, for VisAD? This would reduce the amount of time to find the right methods that has to be extended for my requirements. At least to Bill. I will prepare the testcase and send it with the data file to you.. . . I can send you the test program. That is no problem. Problem is the data file. The file with the ball is also now problem (i have send it to you several month ago "Sphere.plt"), but their you can see normally only the error near the surface. With the data for the complex geometries it is different. I am not allowed to send out this data. Let me hnow, if you are interested in the test case with the ball. If you don't have the data file anymore then i will send this also (arround 4MB compressed) to you.I no longer have the Sphere.plt file. I'll look into the problem if you send me the file plus a program I can run that generates the problem. Please don't CC visad-list since the file is big.One last question. Due to the problems with the cutplane i thought about a resample method that uses an analytic plane to cut through the volume. The output grid then will have the intersection points between the analytic plane and the grid edges as it's domain. Where do you think is the best place to do this? Generating the cutplane grid in a preprocessing tasks and then use FlatField.resample() or should it be better to overide the resample method.I assume you mean a plane specified by an equation like ax+by+cz=d by 'analytic plane'. This is an interesting idea, although the implementation will be a bit tricky (as you say, finding the intersection of edges of the Irregular3DSet's tetrahedra with the plane, then interpolating values between the vertices at each end of those edges). This wouldn't fit naturally in resample(). I'd suggest just calling FlatField.getDomainSet() to get the Irregular3DSet, then get its set.Delan (which will be its Delaunay), then use Delan.Tri and possibly Delan.Edges plus set.getSamples() to do the computational geometry to derive the cutplane grid as an Irregular3DSet with manifold dimension = 2 (the intersection of edges of the Irregular3DSet's tetrahedra with the plane will not produce a GriddedSet).
Olav
Good luck, Bill
visad archives: