I just want to add, that developers are going to continue and support this project.
As for me, I will also try Esys for my tasks and will see what is more suitable. Maybe I will use both. ______________________________ Anton Gladkyy 2009/9/28 Václav Šmilauer <[email protected]> > Hi everybody, > > me and Anton have both attended course on DEM software ESyS-Particle > https://launchpad.net/esys-particle/ in Aachen last week, which was a > very nice event with lots of informations. I would like to share that > with you, as it might be relevant to your research / work on yade. > > Their software is very good, to start with, has 10+ years of development > behind it, with a few people working on it full-time; IIRC the > development mainly goes on in Australia (Queensland, Brisbane?), and one > of the leaders, Steffen Abe, is now in Aachen. > > 1. ESyS is _really_ high-performance (routinely 1e7 particles), able to > scale to hundreds of CPU cores and to be fast. The package is build from > ground-up to run in parallel and does it well: e.g. they use the grid > collider (a variation of the Munjiza's BoBinarySearch algorithm, which > scales linearly), there is no runtime-dispatching to avoid wasting time > etc. > > 2. ESyS has quite good documentation (see their website), including > tutorials, (quite stable) API documentation and so on. > > 3. ESyS was written to do one thing and to do it well -- DEM (spheres + > triangulated meshes, infinite walls) with only a few interaction models; > if you want to add your own constitutive law (there is a tutorial on > that), you have to touch code at many different places (less convenient > than our plugin way). > > 4. ESyS doesn't support saving simulations at arbitrary point and > restarting later (as far as I understood). Along with the absence of > dispatching logic, this allows to not have extended RTTI as yade classes > have to have (REGISTER_CLASS and so on). > > 5. There is no ui, simulations are constructed in python, postprocessing > done using various converters to export VTK data (for e.g. paraview), > analyze fracture propagation etc. > > For me, the conclusions are: > > * for serious, really high performance things, use ESyS (I will try to > port my concrete constitutive law at some point, which shouldn't be too > difficult). There is no sense trying to parallelize yade to larger > extent than what we have now (shared memory), since it would probably > have to be rewritten completely -- quite wasteful, since ESyS works well > for those cases and it would be a tremendous effort to get it right. > > * Yade is much more flexible, therefore a good playground for various > constitutive laws and methods, but with small number of particles. > Couplings are very likely much easier to do with yade, as well as > testing new particle types and so on. > > (I am wondering why Frederic started Yade at time when ESyS was already > around for many years -- it seems unlikely he didn't know about it, > since both Yade and ESyS are offsprings of SDEC). > > Cheers, Vaclav > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev> > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev<https://launchpad.net/%7Eyade-dev> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yade-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
