> On 26 Nov 2018, at 17:06, Max Orok <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Adil, > > I think the mesh is definitely more dense or refined around the spheres. > My first guess is that the mesher makes more points on the spheres because it > needs more points to model them accurately.
There is indeed a default minimum of points for some entities: for circles it's 7. To get the coarsest possible mesh you can change this default value by setting the following option in your script: Mesh.MinimumCirclePoints = 2; Christophe > For the outer box, less points suffice for an accurate mesh. > > For a 2D example, if you are trying to discretize a straight line, you can > get away with the start and end points and not lose any info. > For a curve however, you'll need more points along it for a good > approximation. > > For a look at the mesh, you can use a clipping plane: Tools -> Clipping -> > (Click mesh in left hand pane) -> Click and drag in D box > > Here are some example pictures for a model with a sphere on one side only > > The sparser one was done using Tools -> Clipping -> (Check "keep whole > elements" and "only draw volume layer") > <image.png> > <image.png> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:22 AM Abiti Adili <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you very much. Now I have the lists of the elements with the physical > volume tags they belong to. > > I have attached a png file of the 3D view of the mesh generated, geomtry.geo > and omnibus.geo. > > It seems to me that > when I clicked on 3D in Mesh option it seems like it started generating > more densely around those two balls. > > when clicked on "refine by splitting", it still gets dense around those two > balls. > > You can see it from the attached file of the 3D view of the mesh. > > Is there any reason for this mesh to be denser around the ball and not so > dense in the complement of the balls? Or I am just judging this by my eyes > while it is not actually like that? Is there any way I can confirm that it is > indeed denser around the balls? and If that is true, am I doing something > wrong in the geo files? > > Thank you very much. > > Adil > > > ________________________________________ > From: G. D. McBain <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 11:43:56 PM > To: Abiti Adili > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Gmsh] listing elements according to which physical volume they > belong to > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > Le lundi, novembre 26, 2018 12:43 PM, Abiti Adili <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Hello, > > > > I have a geometry.geo file that creates a box with two small balls in it. I > > used omnibus.geo file that utilize the geometry.geo. Using this file, I > > created a 3D mesh over the box(as well as the two balls in it). I need to > > be able to have a mesh( created over the box) so that the gmsh file lists > > the tetrahedral elements according which physical volume( ball1, ball2, or > > the complement of them in the box) they belong to. > > > > The files I currently have are not quite generating what I wanted, it is > > only listing the elements belong to the complement. I would greatly > > appreciate if someone can take a look at them and point out the mistakes I > > made. > > The last lines of geometry.geo have: > > Volume(1) = {2}; > Volume(2) = {3}; > Volume(3) = {1, 2}; > > The last should read > > Volume(3) = {1, 2, 3}; > > if the second sphere is also to internally bound it. > > _______________________________________________ > gmsh mailing list > [email protected] > http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/gmsh > > > -- > Max Orok > Contractor > www.mevex.com > > > _______________________________________________ > gmsh mailing list > [email protected] > http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/gmsh — Prof. Christophe Geuzaine University of Liege, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~geuzaine Free software: http://gmsh.info | http://getdp.info | http://onelab.info _______________________________________________ gmsh mailing list [email protected] http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/gmsh
