I applied it to the 3.14.1 sources. Perhaps I should indeed switch to the git version.
Is the 3.14 client compatible with the server code in git? On 06/21/2012 02:22 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: > With git-master, I verified that changing the slider indeed changes > the LOD refinement for a Sphere (phi/theta resolutions = 800). Also > try running ParaView with "-dr" option just to avoid any anomolies due > to the settings (for me, however, it works fine even when -dr isn't > specified.) > > Utkarsh > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Utkarsh Ayachit > <utkarsh.ayac...@kitware.com> wrote: >> Paul, >> >> What version did you apply the patch to? >> >> Utkarsh >> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Paul Melis <paul.me...@sara.nl> wrote: >>> Thanks for the patch. I applied it but get really strange results I >>> can't quite explain. I can see the correct values now appearing in >>> vtkGeometryRepresentation::ProcessViewRequest() and the correct division >>> value is set on the decimator (e.g. getting the X division value after >>> being set returns the correct number). >>> >>> But I still don't see any change in the mesh used during interaction for >>> different resolution values. It's as though only the first value set is >>> used. Is there some kind of caching of the mesh going on? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Paul >>> >>> On 06/21/2012 01:46 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>>> Paul, >>>> >>>> Attached is the patch. It is possible to have been introduced around >>>> 3.10. I cannot remember when the views were refactored 3.10 or 3.12, >>>> but that would be the time when it would have stopped working. >>>> >>>> http://paraview.org/Bug/view.php?id=13255 >>>> >>>> Utkarsh >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Paul Melis <paul.me...@sara.nl> wrote: >>>>> Ok, great. Actually just tried a few older PV versions, still seemed to >>>>> work in 3.8.1, but 3.10.1 is where the bug shows up. Does that sound >>>>> like the right timeline? >>>>> >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> On 06/21/2012 12:15 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>>>>> Paul, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for tracking this down. I think I know the problem. I remember >>>>>> changing vtkPVRenderView to accept LOD resolution as a normalized >>>>>> value between [0,1], clearly I forgot to update the GUI. I'll push a >>>>>> fix a post a patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Utkarsh >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Paul Melis <paul.me...@sara.nl> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Utkarsh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I looked a bit into the code and the values used in >>>>>>> pqGlobalRenderViewOptions::applyChanges() seem to be okay, e.g. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void pqGlobalRenderViewOptions::applyChanges() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if (this->Internal->enableLOD->isChecked()) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> printf("pqGlobalRenderViewOptions::applyChanges(): >>>>>>> this->Internal->lodResolution->value() = %d\n", >>>>>>> this->Internal->lodResolution->value()); >>>>>>> settings->setValue("LODThreshold", >>>>>>> this->Internal->lodThreshold->value() / 10.0); >>>>>>> printf("pqGlobalRenderViewOptions::applyChanges(): setting >>>>>>> LODResolution to %d\n", 160-this->Internal->lodResolution->value() + >>>>>>> 10); >>>>>>> settings->setValue("LODResolution", >>>>>>> 160-this->Internal->lodResolution->value() + 10); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gives me output like >>>>>>> >>>>>>> pqGlobalRenderViewOptions::applyChanges(): >>>>>>> this->Internal->lodResolution->value() = 106 >>>>>>> pqGlobalRenderViewOptions::applyChanges(): setting LODResolution to 64 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But when I look at the applied settings in >>>>>>> vtkGeometryRepresentation::ProcessViewRequest(), after adding a printf() >>>>>>> like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void vtkPVRenderView::SetRequestLODRendering(bool enable) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> if (enable) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> this->RequestInformation->Set(USE_LOD(), 1); >>>>>>> printf("vtkPVRenderView::SetRequestLODRendering(): >>>>>>> this->LODResolution = %g\n", this->LODResolution); >>>>>>> this->RequestInformation->Set(LOD_RESOLUTION(), this->LODResolution); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> else >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this always outputs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> vtkPVRenderView::SetRequestLODRendering(): this->LODResolution = 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no matter what the slider is set to, leading to >>>>>>> vtkGeometryRepresentation::ProcessViewRequest() always setting the >>>>>>> decimator to 160^3: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> // this is where we will look to see on what nodes are we going to >>>>>>> render and >>>>>>> // render set that up. >>>>>>> bool lod = this->SuppressLOD? false : >>>>>>> (inInfo->Has(vtkPVRenderView::USE_LOD()) == 1); >>>>>>> if (lod) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> if (inInfo->Has(vtkPVRenderView::LOD_RESOLUTION())) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> int division = static_cast<int>(150 * >>>>>>> inInfo->Get(vtkPVRenderView::LOD_RESOLUTION())) + 10; >>>>>>> printf("SETTING DECIMATOR TO %d^3 DIVISIONS\n", division); >>>>>>> this->Decimator->SetNumberOfDivisions(division, division, >>>>>>> division); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does this make any sense to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS: The other project we had contact on is on my todo-stack, hope to >>>>>>> pick it up again in the near future :-/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 04:14 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>>>>>>> Ok, I do some funkiness in that regard. Let me try to track that down. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Utkarsh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Paul Melis <paul.me...@sara.nl> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Ah, missed that. But my issue is not that the LOD-rendering mesh is >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> same as the fullres one (it's not, as expected), but that the LOD >>>>>>>>> resolution setting does not seem to influence the LOD mesh in my case. >>>>>>>>> Especially for a very large mesh I would expect 10^3 versus 160^3 to >>>>>>>>> make a whopping difference. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 04:03 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Look closely. They are not the same. Look the wireframing around the >>>>>>>>>> centre of the sphere closely. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Paul Melis <paul.me...@sara.nl> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm, amiss at my end or in ParaView? The LOD and non-LOD views of >>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>> sphere are the same it seems. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 03:50 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Something's amiss. Attached are images of what I see when I >>>>>>>>>>>> interact >>>>>>>>>>>> with a default sphere. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Utkarsh >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Paul Melis <paul.me...@sara.nl> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the LOD render use quadric clustering by the way? >>>>>>>>>>>>> And if so, should the LOD resolution setting produce the same mesh >>>>>>>>>>>>> during interactive rendering as when applying a Quadric Clustering >>>>>>>>>>>>> filter to the same input with the same resolution settings? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 03:40 PM, Paul Melis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, maybe not a good test, as depending on the sphere >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution a the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quadric clustering will produce the same results for a range of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dimension settings (i.e. 10^3 and up) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 03:36 PM, Paul Melis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I actually get the same result when using the builtin server. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 03:34 PM, Paul Melis wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same result, I see no difference in meshes used during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between 10x10x10 and 160x160x160 for LOD Resolution. Just to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - LOD Threshold is checked, set to 0.00 MBytes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Remote Render Threshold is checked, set to 0 MBytes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 03:28 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try reproducing with sphere source. Any luck? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Paul Melis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <paul.me...@sara.nl> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's already at 0 (see below). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 03:16 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHat is the LOD Threshold set to? Try setting it to 0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utkarsh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Paul Melis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <paul.me...@sara.nl> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm doing remote rendering with PV 3.14.0, with quite a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large set (isosurface of 98M tris) on 16 render nodes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each with a GTX460 and 12 GB RAM (Linux 64-bit cluster >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This model renders like a dog when interacting. I've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checked the subsampling settings, compression settings and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOD settings to see make sure I'm actually using lower >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution rendering and model decimation during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interaction. I have enabled LOD Threshold and set the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value to 0 (to force LOD usage during interaction, per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tooltip). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I don't see any difference in the actual decimated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model used during interactive rendering for different LOD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Resolution values (checked using surface-with-edges repr >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rendering without subsampling). I also don't see how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the value for LOD resolution relates to the actual model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used. I would expect something like quadric clustering to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used, but when e.g. setting LOD resolution to 10x10x10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the model during interaction uses many more triangles than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "10 per direction" (or per data piece assigned per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process, when showing Process Id Scalars). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just don't see any difference between different LOD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolution settings. Am I missing a setting somewhere? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview