You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm running the system with an AMR dataset, and I'm getting some results that confuse me somewhat. I have a suspicion why they are doing what they are doing, but I cannot yet verify this.
To set the stage, I've loaded up a "fake" AMR dataset using yt.testing.fake_amr_ds(geometry = "spherical") and I'm rendering the field "ones".
With a random normal, [0.18617054, 0.15260178, 0.83324573], I get an image that looks like the attached. The min/max are 0 and 3.971; this is just under what I'd expect the max to be (4.0, for through-the-center).
The AMR grids are well-defined, and the total enclosed volume is correct. It looks to me, however, like it's not fully traversing some of the grids. I am not sure if this is because they need to be entered by rays twice (which is definitely possible), but I am working on figuring that out. So I will get back to you. I just wanted to give an update.
I'm starting to suspect that I'll need to use the walkSphericalVolume function to compute the order of traversal for the grids.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Matt. To be clear, you are expecting a completely symmetric image? What are num_polar_sections and num_azimuthal_sections here? And, what are the min and max bounds used?
Hi Ariel,
This is feeding in lots of little grids, where num_polar and num_azimuthal
may differ. I'm working on a tiny replicable example, which I should be
able to share tomorrow.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:35 PM Ariel Kellison ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Matt. To be clear, you are expecting a completely symmetric image? What
are num_polar_sections and num_azimuthal_sections here? And, what are the
min and max bounds used?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#204 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAVXOZ3OUUBWSHAK6HMAG3R7NK4ZANCNFSM4PUVH5LQ>
.
I'm running the system with an AMR dataset, and I'm getting some results that confuse me somewhat. I have a suspicion why they are doing what they are doing, but I cannot yet verify this.
To set the stage, I've loaded up a "fake" AMR dataset using
yt.testing.fake_amr_ds(geometry = "spherical")
and I'm rendering the field"ones"
.With a random normal,
[0.18617054, 0.15260178, 0.83324573]
, I get an image that looks like the attached. The min/max are 0 and 3.971; this is just under what I'd expect the max to be (4.0, for through-the-center).The AMR grids are well-defined, and the total enclosed volume is correct. It looks to me, however, like it's not fully traversing some of the grids. I am not sure if this is because they need to be entered by rays twice (which is definitely possible), but I am working on figuring that out. So I will get back to you. I just wanted to give an update.
I'm starting to suspect that I'll need to use the
walkSphericalVolume
function to compute the order of traversal for the grids.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: