On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is the first version with the new file formats. That deserves
> more verbaige than my thumbs are capable of at this moment...
I'm putting these into a PDF document. Keep emailing the list if you
th
I think this is the first version with the new file formats. That deserves
more verbaige than my thumbs are capable of at this moment...
-Ben
- Original Message -
From: Derek Gaston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Kirk, Be
How about:
- Updated Exodus library.
- Expanded Exodus I/O support:
- Can now write multiple timesteps to same Exodus file.
- subdomain_id now properly set using "block_id" from Exodus
- Integrated Nemesis library for parallel I/O using Exodus. More work
needs to be done.
These are sma
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, John Peterson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> One thing: we should tag (and tarball, etc.) 0.6.3 now, but we
>>> probably ought to write up a
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, John Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> One thing: we should tag (and tarball, etc.) 0.6.3 now, but we
>> probably ought to write up a changelog (both for new features and API
>> changes!) before we post an announce
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:49 PM, John Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> One thing: we should tag (and tarball, etc.) 0.6.3 now, but we
>> probably ought to write up a changelog (both for new features and API
>> change
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Roy Stogner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One thing: we should tag (and tarball, etc.) 0.6.3 now, but we
> probably ought to write up a changelog (both for new features and API
> changes!) before we post an announcement about it. It's been a while
> since 0.6.2, a
One thing: we should tag (and tarball, etc.) 0.6.3 now, but we
probably ought to write up a changelog (both for new features and API
changes!) before we post an announcement about it. It's been a while
since 0.6.2, and I'll have to go back through the SVN logs before I
remember what's been new s
Fire at will.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Thu Aug 14 11:17:58 2008
Subject: [Libmesh-devel] libmesh-0.6.3
Hi,
Any other objections to tagging the SVN head as 0.6.3? Are there any
more outstanding bugs t
Hi,
Any other objections to tagging the SVN head as 0.6.3? Are there any
more outstanding bugs that need fixing before we can do so? I'd like
to get a tagged version so that other development can continue...
Thanks,
--
John
-
> Then again, the default is just that - a default. You can override
it if
> you want, and in some cases, for some problems, there is certainly a
> performance benefit to under-integrating. This is possible in my
> compressible navier-stokes stuff so long as you lump the mass matrix.
Yeah, n
> Actually I just had a thought that on quadratic isoparametric elements
> the Jacobian will be a linear function, so is the idea of the 2*order+1
> to cover this case?
That was my original thought. Even on distorted bilinear quadrilaterals the
Jacobian will be non-constant.
This predates Roy's
I was wondering why default_quadrature_order in fe_type returns
2*order+1? It says in the documentation that the idea is that the
default quadrature rule integrates the mass matrix exactly, so shouldn't
2*order be sufficient?
Using tensor product Gauss quadrature rules, the "+1" doesn't make a
13 matches
Mail list logo
