Actually, one problem I just realized is correlating the extra P2 vertices with a P2 vector function. For the kind of stuff I do, I have a velocity field which is 2nd order everywhere, and I use it to move my mesh vertices. So, if I have P2 mesh vertices I must ensure that the velocity DoFs correspond with the P2 mesh vertices. I have had no problem with this before because I have my own code which is fairly straightforward. But there may be a problem in generalizing it. argh....
So, it seems that if I wanted a P2 mesh, I must create a P2 function that lives on that P2 mesh where all the DoF's correspond. I could then use the P2 function to interpolate any velocity field I have onto the P2 mesh vertices in order to update the mesh. This P2 function would, of course, contain the vertices/control points for each triangle. Would that `MeshFunction' be able to do this? - Shawn On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Anders Logg wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 03:03:06PM -0400, Shawn Walker wrote: >> I see that you want to keep the mesh topology separated from the >> geometry, right? But, even now, this is slightly violated in the current >> .xml format, because with each vertex index, you give the coordinates. >> If all you wanted was the topology, then the coordinates would not be >> necessary. The coordinates are only need to make sense of the geometry of >> the mesh (i.e. whether there is overlap of triangles or inverted >> triangles, etc). So, technically, there should be a list of topological >> vertices and a separate list of geometric vertices. >> >> Is this what you mean? >> >> - Shawn > > Yes. We might need to break the XML format by having a <topology> tag > and a <geometry> tag which are separate. > > -- > Anders > _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
