FYI<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Jane Hu</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:janejhu@gmail.com">janejhu@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:01 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [cgma-dev] Multiple "TopologyBridge"s under one merged "RefEntity"<br>To: Hong-Jun Kim <<a href="mailto:hongjun@mcs.anl.gov">hongjun@mcs.anl.gov</a>><br><br><br>I just chatted with Jason and learned two things:<br>
<br>Jason, Please correct me if I understood wrong.<br><br>1. When getting one of the merged geometries, cubit10.2 kept the RefEntity and its sense for both geometries. So you can do keep your mesh. While cubit12 use their own RefEntities and senses for each geometry, so you may end up with reversed mesh loops. Each geometry entity or TopologyBridge remain the same, hopefully your mesh won't need to know details about them.<br>
<br>2. Our <a href="https://svn.mcs.anl.gov/repos/ITAPS/cgm/branches/cubit/" target="_blank">https://svn.mcs.anl.gov/repos/ITAPS/cgm/branches/cubit/</a> directory is now cubit code for version 12, we don't have a clean branch for cubit10.2. Although we need all our code for 10.2, when make with --with-cubit option, it only used limited stuff from our code, mainly the header files. r4775 is the one we merged our code to cubit12, so before it should be all cubit10 code. Please use code changes before r4775 for your build.<br>
<font color="#888888">
<br>Jane</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Hong-Jun Kim <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hongjun@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">hongjun@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Tim recommended to use CGM with cubit 10.2 for this problem because it is hard to fix it not modifying core part of CGM.<br>
<br>
So, it looks CGM r5026 is the latest version with cubit 10.2 and then is it the best way to use this revision?<br>
Otherwise, is there any branch for cubit 10.2 in repository?<br>
Thanks.<br>
<div><br>
Hong-Jun<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "Jane Hu" <<a href="mailto:janejhu@gmail.com" target="_blank">janejhu@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: "Hong-Jun Kim" <<a href="mailto:hongjun@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">hongjun@mcs.anl.gov</a>><br>
</div><div><div></div><div>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:50:52 AM<br>
> Subject: Re: [cgma-dev] Multiple "TopologyBridge"s under one merged "RefEntity"<br>
> Before you send to different processors, can you detect the sense<br>
> difference, and give a correct loop direction for it?<br>
><br>
> Jane<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Hong-Jun Kim < <a href="mailto:hongjun@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">hongjun@mcs.anl.gov</a> ><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> My parallel mesher pre-meshs interface shared region and sends the<br>
> mesh information to proper places in processors.<br>
> If the shared geometries in different processors have different<br>
> geometry directions, their mesh loop directions are confused.<br>
><br>
> This problem happens only for "scatter" geometry distribution method<br>
> not for other methods like "broadcast and delete", then I am comparing<br>
> where the problems come from.<br>
><br>
> Thanks for your comment.<br>
><br>
> Hong-Jun<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> > From: "Jane Hu" < <a href="mailto:janejhu@gmail.com" target="_blank">janejhu@gmail.com</a> ><br>
> > To: "Hong-Jun Kim" < <a href="mailto:hongjun@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">hongjun@mcs.anl.gov</a> ><br>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:55:25 AM<br>
> > Subject: Re: [cgma-dev] Multiple "TopologyBridge"s under one merged<br>
> > "RefEntity"<br>
> > Can I ask you why do you want to make the TopologyBridges still<br>
> > using<br>
> > the same edge direction? My 2-cent opinion is that each geometry by<br>
> > itself is consistent for its own senses, and for mesh purpose, I<br>
> > think<br>
> > you may go ahead mesh each one, just make sure the merged entity has<br>
> > the same mesh setting. Then when the meshed parts are going to be<br>
> > put<br>
> > together, you need to take special care if the TopoBridges are<br>
> > opposite senses, the parameters you are going to be merged should<br>
> > reverse too, or in other word, I think after parallel mesh, we need<br>
> > to<br>
> > rematch the nodes and connectivity on merged curves and faces.<br>
> ><br>
> > Jane<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Hong-Jun Kim < <a href="mailto:hongjun@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">hongjun@mcs.anl.gov</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Hi, all<br>
> ><br>
> > When I scatter geometries in parallel meshing, I need the merged<br>
> > geometry edges have the same geometry directions in every processor.<br>
> ><br>
> > However, since there are multiple "TopologyBridge"s under one merged<br>
> > "RefEntity", different TopologyBridge entities are scattered to<br>
> > processors and it makes inconsistent geometry edge direction.<br>
> ><br>
> > So, can I ask if there is any way forcing to export the same<br>
> > TopologyBridge entities for all merged entities?<br>
> ><br>
> > Moreover, "CAMergePartner" attribute is not used any more?<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks.<br>
> ><br>
> > -----------------------------<br>
> > Hong-Jun Kim<br>
> > Post-doc researcher<br>
> > MCS, Argonne National Laboratory<br>
> > 9700 S. Cass Ave. B240/R2147<br>
> > Argonne, IL 60439<br>
> > <a href="tel:630-252-4791" value="+16302524791" target="_blank">630-252-4791</a><br>
> > <a href="mailto:hongjun@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">hongjun@mcs.anl.gov</a><br>
> > -----------------------------<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></div><br>