<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Gorman, Gerard J <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g.gorman@imperial.ac.uk" target="_blank">g.gorman@imperial.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
Hi Matt
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First - really sorry for having inflicted this on you. I agree that there are many problems with the format and it’s not like the world needs a new file format. I only happened to use it for a case where there was an existing toolchain…which I’m now rewriting
anyhow.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is your current least detested file format for FEM that plays nicely with DMPlex? Exodus II?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>ExodusII we can read, and it maintains all the markers correctly, etc. It is currently my favorite.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Dharmendar - you might just want to write a simple translation script if you are locked into gmsh for some reason. It is also a pain that the format does not work with paraview and other common tools out of the box.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you need Gmsh, I will get it working, it just may take a little while to sort out. You can send me small samples to test with.</div><div><br></div><div> Thanks,</div><div><br></div>
<div> Matt</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Cheers</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div>Gerard</div></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On 11 Jan 2014, at 01:14, Matthew Knepley <<a href="mailto:knepley@gmail.com" target="_blank">knepley@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Dharmendar Reddy <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:dharmareddy84@gmail.com" target="_blank">dharmareddy84@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hello,<br>
I have a question and feature request regarding DMPlexCreateGmsh.<br>
<br>
Gmsh, mesh format outputs, physical regions in the mesh as<br>
For example in the a particular 2 d mesh with eight physical regions<br>
it may look like the one below<br>
$PhysicalNames<br>
8<br>
1 1 "RegionName1"<br>
1 2 "RegionName2"<br>
1 3 "RegionName3"<br>
2 4 "RegionName4"<br>
2 5 "RegionName5"<br>
2 6 "RegionName6"<br>
2 7 "RegionName7"<br>
2 8 "RegionName8"<br>
$EndPhysicalNames<br>
<br>
It would be nice to have the DMPLexCreateGmsh process this information.<br>
<br>
The first number in each row of name is the topological dimension (tdim),<br>
<br>
If the code can group all the regions with dimension < mesh dimension<br>
(meshDim) as "Boundary" and all regions with dimension =<br>
meshDimension as "Region"<br>
<br>
Gmsh outputs (if requested) the lower dimension cells in regions with<br>
tdim < meshDim. If interpolate mesh is enabled, i would like to have<br>
cells of boundary region, which in the above example will be lines and<br>
points, included in the boundary strata with global numbering for the<br>
facets.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I really hate GMsh right now. The format is a complete cluster of idiocy. They allow</div>
<div>outputting facets as separate lower-dimensional cells, unconnected to the original</div>
<div>cell, so we would have to initiate a search for every insertion. Not to mention that sizes</div>
<div>are not declared up front so that we have to run through the file in multiple passes. I</div>
<div>really really hate these guys. Is there an overwhelming reason to waste my time messing</div>
<div>around with a format designed by the mentally infirm?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am willing to listen to reason, but reading Gmsh files would make anyone unreasonably angry.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Matt</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This ways the total number of Cells in the mesh will be : NumNodes +<br>
NumLines+ NumTriangles or NumNodes+ NumTriangles (if interpolate is<br>
off)<br>
<br>
<br>
In the Current implementation, correct me if i am wrong, I see the the<br>
total number of cells = numNodes + (some Lines which are elements of<br>
the lower dimensional regions) + numTriangles<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Reddy<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener
</div></div>