--On 10/08/2004 04:26:17 PM -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that it would be much more efficient to convert each geologic
unit (they are fairly continuous in space, i.e. mainly layers) to some
sort of volume defined only by the geometry of its outer surfaces. This
would eliminate all the interior data which are redundant anyway.
There are two separate issues here: the type of grid, and how the data is
attached to the grid. An "unstructured grid" consists of cells, possibly of
different shapes, that can occupy any volume in space. A "structured" grid
has the same number of values along each row, along each column, and in
each layer. it will always occupy a rectangular region of space.
If your original grid comes close to occupying a rectangular region in
space, and has roughly the same resolution throughout, you may indeed be
better off converting to a structured grid, in DX or external to DX. There
is a DX module that does this.
A grid can have data attached to the vertices, the cells, or both. I use
data attached to cells often and, with a few exceptions, it works just
fine. I don't think you need to change this aspect of your data.
Another
alternative might be to simply use a "fence diagram"; that is, a series
of cross sectional slices oriented in several directions, but a lot of
information would be lost using this approach.
That sounds a lot like the "Volume Browser" available at PSC:
<http://www.psc.edu/biomed/research/VB/>
Its designed for a large grids (the Visible Humans) and may provide a fast
and powerful way to see your geological data. Its not based on DX but it is
free. The contacts at that site may be able to help adapt it to your data.
Kent
- - -
Kent Eschenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 412-268-6829
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
