More thoughts. >Case #2: >So, I tried adding another step. I extract the invalid positions component of >P1 and P2 and do a logical .or. to get a new invalid positions array (assuming >"def positions"). I then replace the invalid positions component of the new >field object with this array. The plotted field object has a greater number of >invalid points than either P1 or P2, so I initially assume that things are >working OK.
I'm assuming you mean "dep" above (since the alternative is "ref"). > >I compared plots using both methods, and the results are confusing. The plots >look the same (same number of plotted points - It appears the fewer number) >regardless of use of the "combined" invalid positions array. Also, for >case #1, >some data that should be tagged as "invalid" still remains in the new field >(Describe tells me that valid positions range from some reasonable number to >e+38, obviously the out-of-range value). This is even though the high range >does not show up in the plot (x and y axis each range < 40) > Sorry sent the last note without rereading your report carefully. Invalidating does not change positions data, it just masks undesirable positions. How did you get e+38 in the first place? Is that the data value you are trying to invalidate? >Is Plot smart enough to throw out all the appropriate invalid points (in x and >y) even though Describe appears to indicate that they remain in the field ? Am >I doing this all wrong ? Invalids are only actually culled with Include with cull set to true. Most modules leave the invalid positions in the field but ignore them in some way appropriate to the module. Statistics skips them, Image doesn't render them, etc. Chris Pelkie Vice President/Scientific Visualization Producer Conceptual Reality Presentations, Inc. 30 West Meadow Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
