I'm working on a plug-in which requires merging of two simple 3d grids(stitching the intersections of two grids together), can I know how to merge them in Petrel?
Related
I have positional data of 24 joints which I want to visualize. I am able to read in the data into a pandas data frame. But I am not sure how to do the visualization. I am able to plot the points in a scatter plot with matplotlib, but I am still looking for an elegant way to draw the lines, because not all joints are connected. I know which ones are connected, but implementing it seems very tedious. One way of doing this I thought was to have a 24x24 matrix with entries 0 if the two joints are not connected and 1 if the two joints are connected. Such a matrix I can easily type out myself. But I am not sure how to use this then to plot the lines.
For my thesis I'm using a finite element flow solver to simulate the flow through a flume. The flow solver is capable of solving the flow in a 3D unstructured mesh constructed of tetrahedrons. However, the meshes I generate with Gmsh somehow seem to be too unstructured. Which leads too unsolvable and very slow runs.
At the moment I've tried to do simulations with both unstructured and structured meshes. Simulation with very coarse unstructured meshes go very well, however once I make the element size smaller, the flow solver only produces NaN values and doesn't run at all.
For the simulations with structured meshes I've used the transfinite technique to produce a very fine structured mesh. This mesh contains way more element than the unstructured one and the results are fine. However, in future runs I need to refine the mesh in certain areas which doesn't seem possible with the transfinite volume technique in 3D.
Does anyone have any what could possibly go wrong in this case? And is there a way to improve the quality of a 3D gmsh mesh? Can the structure of the mesh be improved somehow?
Thanks in advance!
Bart
I think the middle ground between a transfinite structured grid and a completely unstructured one would be one made of 8-node hexs. If your 3D case can be built from an extruded 2D case, you could try setting Mesh.Algorithm=8 to get right triangles (rather than equilaterals) and then use the Recombine Surface option to turn them into quads.
I working on a thermal tool using OptiX.
I started with the "meshviewer" example which uses syoyo's tinygltf loader.
Basically I want to import a file, get the number of primitives and then add up the intersections.
Now I imported a file containing two cubes, which should consist of 12 triangles each, so 24 in total. When I start my program the loader only recognizes 12 triangles, but it renders 2 seperate cubes. The primitive IDs seem to be identical for both cubes.
Is there a workaround when I export from blender? If I understood the documentation directly the separate cubes are treated as two "identical" instances of the same mesh and thus share the primitive IDs.
I am using the v2.81 of Blender with the gltf exporter.
Do I understand the problem correctly? And is there an easy workaround? If not it seems I will have to modify the tinygltf loader.
Thank you for help in advance!
It's possible the two cubes share the same mesh. In the screenshot below, there are two Blender "objects", Left-Cube and Right-Cube. Both objects use the same Blender mesh, called Shared-Cube-Mesh.
The glTF exporter recognizes this pattern and mirrors it in the glTF file. There will be two glTF nodes, corresponding to the two Blender objects that use the mesh. But there will only be a single glTF mesh, with a single cube.
You can click the "number of users" button, shown below with a white arrow pointing to it, to make the second object use its own unique mesh. But be warned, this doubles the amount of mesh data being exported to glTF in this simple example. A complete copy of the mesh would be made in both Blender and the glTF binary payload.
In graph-tool, I have a forest of graphs and I want to add special edges across the graphs from/to specific nodes without encapsulating all the graphs into a new bigger multi-graph. Is there a way to do that?
That is not possible as it would invalidate the definition of a graph. You can, however, merge graphs together with graph_union(), and connect their vertices with edges. If necessary, you can differentiate the types of edges with property maps.
I was wondering if I could get some advice on the best way to approach this.
I'm in the process of writing an emulator that runs old UK arcade fruit machines games that have 'feature boards'. The machines are similar to US slots. The actual board consists of many semi-transparent squares that are lit from behind (see image for an example). Image
What I'm looking to do is render a 3D representation of a machine by (preferably) using an open source 3D engine. What I'm not sure of is how best to approach the 'backlighting' effect of the individual squares of the feature board. A square can be individually turned on or off and dimmed to any level. I'm very experienced with C++ and assembly but fairly new to directx/opengl.
Bearing in mind there could be up to 512 lamps flashing/dimming individually, I'm guessing that using 'normal' lights behind semi-transparent textures would be too intensive? I've read up about pixel and vertex shaders, and was wondering if this would be the best way to approach the effect? (eg split the feature board up into individual textured polygons for each square, but join them all together so it looks as one)
Thanks for any advice