On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 03:48, Richard Katz <richard.katz at earth.ox.ac.uk>wrote:
> I think that PetscViewerBinaryMatlabXXX() is a good model for this hdf5 > Viewer. Each binary output file is accompanied by a light-weight descriptor > file. > > > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-2/snapshots/petsc-current/docs/manualpages/DM/PetscViewerBinaryMatlabOpen.html > > Incidentally, I guess the reason that PetscViewerBinaryMatlabXXX() exists > outside of the VecView() and PetscBagView() context is that they must be > aware of DMDAs. It seems a bit strange that there is no generic > "VecDMDAView()" > It's spelled VecView() and any viewers that need you to call something else should be fixed. > > > I have a dream of eventually having model code (via the DM interface) > callable by the vis plugin so that we could store only state variables (e.g. > density, momentum, energy) and compute derived quantities (e.g. velocity, > pressure, temperature, lift, drag, fluxes, stresses) in a consistent way. As > it is, you have to write loads of redundant information into files if you > want to visualize it. That's lame. > > Does this violate PETSc policy of being science-neutral? Or do you mean > this is all implemented in application-code? Seems to me that the user > should be responsible for physics-based post-processing of the output > (though maybe I have misunderstood you). > I only mean to provide hooks so that users can provide this code. It's too much work these days to get decent visualization if you have to roll everything yourself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20111017/f64ff648/attachment.html>
