On 14/12/2016 08:00, Jonny Hyman wrote: > 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. :)
For a simulation of reasonable scale the .vtu files are often in excess of 10 gigabytes per file. Thus, loading 50 or so of these files into a single instance of ParaView is not really practical. Indeed, it is likely to take several minutes to step between each point. Merging 50 of these files together into a single .vtu file would result in a ~500 gigabyte behemoth and thus would be very difficult to work with. 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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
