Just a little more info on this. The problem starts with 3.98. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Philipp E. <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry Cory, > > you are right. The cell number is the same. > > Regards > Philipp > > > Am 19.09.2014 um 17:46 schrieb Cory Quammen: >> Philipp, >> >> I can confirm what you see with a pre 4.2 version of ParaView. >> However, the number of produced cells is the same. >> >> I will try to track down why this changed. >> >> Thanks, >> Cory >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Philipp E <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Cory >>> >>> I managed to compress the data set to a fair size and attached it to >>> this mail. The data set is pressure, contour value is 0.55. >>> >>> By looking again at the data (contour -> information), I just found that >>> the old version (3.14.1) uses 148432 cells , while the the new one >>> employs 75232 cells. Hope that helps. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> Philipp >>> >>> Errata: I meant 4.2.0RC1 in the previous mails. >>> >>> On 09/19/2014 04:59 PM, Cory Quammen wrote: >>>> Phillipp, >>>> >>>> Do you have a data set similar to the one you've shown that you can share? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Cory >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Philipp E <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hi Cory, >>>>> >>>>> thank you for your fast feedback. >>>>> >>>>> a) Compute normal is checked. (Without normals, the contour is >>>>> completely stepped) >>>>> b) Contour values are the same. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Philipp >>>>> >>>>> On 09/19/2014 04:40 PM, Cory Quammen wrote: >>>>>> Philipp, >>>>>> >>>>>> In the contour filter, is the option "Compute Normals" checked in 4.0 >>>>>> RC1? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, are the contour values the same between the two versions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Cory >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Philipp E <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> after extensive search I was desperate enough to post on this list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It appears that the surface smoothing algorithm of the contour filter >>>>>>> does not work as "aggressive" as in older version (3.14.1 was the last >>>>>>> one we found to do so). As an example I prepared this two screenshots, >>>>>>> VTK data are scalars on a structured grid (200x100x100), legacy format. >>>>>>> (An additional call of the "smooth" filter does not help.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.14.1 >>>>>>> http://s7.directupload.net/images/140919/euadfvko.png >>>>>>> 4.0.RC1 >>>>>>> http://s14.directupload.net/images/140919/84y689mi.png >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both versions are running with the shipped settings. Since the effect >>>>>>> could be reproduced on several workstations, we are wondering whether >>>>>>> there has been an (undocumented?) change in the filter mechanism or some >>>>>>> option we/setting/data problem we are not aware of. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards and thanks in advance >>>>>>> Philipp Engels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>>>>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: >>>>>>> http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>>>>>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview > _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
