Thanks for the response. Two followup questions - - I am dealing with cell centered data (results are computed at the centroid of the volume cell). In view of this, for pyramids and prisms it seems more natural to think of them as degenerate cubes (view a prism as a cube with 2 duplicate nodes and a pyramid as a cube with 4 duplicate nodes). This way the data are still residing at the cell centroid. Does this seem like a reasonable approach?
- Is it best to represent the collections of different cell types as different fields within a group? TIA, -S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > only tetrahedra and hexahedra. For the latter, say "cubes" for the > connection type. Tetrahedra are "tetrahedra". For pyramids or prisms, > you'll have to decompose to tetrahedra. The data model can support the > representation of these and other types, but most modules (i.e., ones that > do interpolation), won't know how to operate on them. > > Steve Ettorre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@opendx.watson.ibm.com on 08/19/2000 > 08:40:09 PM > > Please respond to [email protected] > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > cc: > Subject: [opendx-users] supported element types > > Hi - > > Just a quick question - does data explorer support the following element > types: > > tetrahedra > pyramids > prisms > hexehdra > > If yes - what do I specify as the "element type" for each of these > shapes in the "connections" object attribute? > > TIA, > Steve > > -- > Steve Ettorre > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------- > "...thinking is not consciousness - > it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh > ------------------------------------------- -- Steve Ettorre e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- "...thinking is not consciousness - it requires hard work..." - Rush Limbaugh -------------------------------------------
