Thanks a lot Utkarsh.
I' d already tried to pass cell data before asking on the list but
likely did not set up extent correctly.
The obtained slices:
1) had "holes" as with pointdata
2) were "scrambled"
3) were not smooth ( no interpolation inside cells )
With your extent suggestion 1) and 2) got fixed
In order to have proper interpolation I tried to add a filter of
celldata to pointdata.
This did not worked properly as seams between different processors is
still visible.
I tried to add a filter that clip on a value out of range ( to turn
struct data into unstruct data ) and then the interpolation seem to work
much better.
We tried this on a small case, I'm bit worried that this approach to
convert to unstructured data would cause data explosion and would not
scale well.
Another option would be to add to the c++ or fortran code some mpi calls
to retrieve the missing border cells, any example for that?
Thanks again
Luigi
On 20/08/2016 17:59, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote:
Luigi,
For an image data distributed across multiple ranks with no ghost
cell, there still exists a single point overlap for the points. The
points along the shared boundary are expected to be duplicated among
ranks. I am thinking your 3D regular grid should be mapped as
cell-data rather than point data. Thus when creating the image, try
setting the point extents as 1+cell-extents and then pass your data to
the cell data arrays rather than point data.
e.g.
int cell_exts[6] = { local domain exts };
int point_exts[6] = { cell_exts[0] , cell_exts[1] + 1,
cell_exts[2], cel_exts[3] + 1,
cell_exts[4], cel_exts[5] + 1};
vtkNew<vtkImageData> data;
data->SetExtent(point_exts);
data->GetCellData()->SetScalars(...<vtkDataArray subclass with 3d grid data> );
Utkarsh
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Luigi Calori <[email protected]> wrote:
We are newbie in Catalyst, trying to instrument two CFD MPI simulation codes
that both have 3d regular grid
as it' s data structure. We have followed the fortran example and used
ImageData for both codes.
The two code are different in the distribution of the memory among
processors:
one is a differential one who keep overlapping extents among processors:
this gave no problems.
The other does not have any overlapping as it using 2d fft decomposition.
The imagedata extents of each processor do not overlap as there is no need
of "ghost" cells.
This result in a strange bug in filter slicing:
If the slicing is done in the paraview client ( the whole field is passed to
client) and we slice there, slice is ok.
If the slicing is done in the catalyst pipeline, the slice has gaps.
As one difference is the overlapping of each processor extent, is it
REQUIRED that there is some overlapping of
PointData extents?
Thanks in advance for any help
Best
Luigi
--
Luigi Calori
SuperComputing Applications and Innovation Department
CINECA - via Magnanelli, 6/3, 40033 Casalecchio di Reno (Bologna) - ITALY
Tel: +39 051 6171509 Fax: +39 051 6132198
hpc.cineca.it
_______________________________________________
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
Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
--
Luigi Calori
SuperComputing Applications and Innovation Department
CINECA - via Magnanelli, 6/3, 40033 Casalecchio di Reno (Bologna) - ITALY
Tel: +39 051 6171509 Fax: +39 051 6132198
hpc.cineca.it
_______________________________________________
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
Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
