Interesting! When you say PyFR isn't really used for simulations of sufficient scale, do you mean computationally, spatially, or based on complexity? It seems to me that the flux reconstruction approach should be scalable to many different flows, so I'm a bit confused as to what you mean. :)
Thanks so much for your helpful information! You guys are the best! On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 10:04:35 PM UTC-8, Freddie Witherden wrote: > > On 13/12/2016 21:02, Jonny Hyman wrote: > > I'm doing some simple tests to get acquainted with PyFR. > > > > I would like to have a *time playback *in Paraview? I can get the single > > solutions from the .pyfrs files and the export functionality to .vtu, > > but I'm not super clear on how to make a 4-dimensional simulation - > > effectively mashing all of the pyfrs solutions into one file or set of > > arrays which can be played back over time. > > > > Does anyone have tips? I may just write a Python script to merge all of > > the data in the .pyfrs files into a time dependent vtu but I don't want > > to go through the trouble if there's some simpler solution. > > You should be able to open up all of the .vtu files at once in ParaView > and then step through them using the built in UI. > > In general, the kinds of simulations that PyFR is used for are of > sufficient scale that it is simply not practical to work with more than > a single solution file at a time. As such there has been no work around > merging multiple files together. > > Regards, Freddie. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PyFR Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/pyfrmailinglist. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
