Re: [Paraview] Still Render in PV5.2.0 takes longer time than in PV4.4.0

For the first render of points your numbers seem reasonable. For subsequent renders you will find different tradeoffs on the old backend. Display Lists are typically slower for a first render but faster on subsequent renders. With them turned off the first render is fast but subsequent renders are

Re: [Paraview] Still Render in PV5.2.0 takes longer time than in PV4.4.0

Thank you all! I'm using Kitware's binaries and 4.4 is with OpenGL 1 and 5.2 is with OpenGL 2. Now that this option has no impact on OpenGL2 backend, is there any other option (besides those mentioned in the User's Guide) that can improve the performance of PV 5.2? In my case, by turning off

Re: [Paraview] plugins with 5.2

sure, although I hope this isn't asking too much, as the build has a few dependencies, I think for this only NetCDF is needed. here is the repo https://github.com/LBL-EESA/TECA plugin is in the ParaView dir. On 01/03/2017 01:35 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: Burlen, Happy new year to you too!

Re: [Paraview] slicing a large VTK_POLYHEDRON

Hi Mathieu and Thomas, Thank you for the suggestions. 1) I tried the tetrahedralize filter on my data but I did not get the results I was expecting. I have a polyhedron which is not convex (https://postimg.org/image/9s3egl8rz/) and the filter fill the gap as you can see here

Re: [Paraview] plugins with 5.2

Burlen, Happy new year to you too! Hmm, that's odd. Can you share the plugin code with me? Let's see if I can reproduce the issue. Utkarsh On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Burlen Loring wrote: > Hi Utkarsh, Happy new year! > > I have a couple of questions about the new way. >

Re: [Paraview] Animating a function of a field

Aleksejs, Using brute strength and awkwardness, three conditions are needed: (1) if your datum set is defined as f(x,y,z,t) & g(x,y,z,t), (2) if both f(.) and g(.) are either cell values or point values, and (3) if the variable 'time(.)' has been explicitly added as a datum set item (a name

Re: [Paraview] slicing a large VTK_POLYHEDRON

Hi Mathieu and Pierre, Perhaps you meant to point to this “work in progress” branch? https://gitlab.kitware.com/vtk/vtk/merge_requests/2088 Sincerely, T.J. Thomas J. Corona, Ph.D. Kitware, Inc. R Engineer 21 Corporate Drive Clifton Park, NY 12065-8662 Phone: 518-881-4443 > On Jan 3, 2017, at

Re: [Paraview] difference in the output of co-processing

Hi Ufuk, Thanks for checking this out. Did you try out saving the trace as a pvsm file? Did you get the correct result when loading the pvsm file back or not? Can you share the data set and the generated pvsm file and the Python state file? Thanks, Andy On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Ufuk

Re: [Paraview] some more questions about Catalyst

Hi, There have been a lot of rendering improvements between 4.4 and 5.2 so you'll definitely want to use 5.2 for the best performance. Also, 5.2 has a lot of Catalyst and Live improvements. You shouldn't need to output images or Cinema data bases in order to get the Live functionality. Andy On

Re: [Paraview] Error while launching Paraview (and Paraview Web) in Window 10

Ok that mean there is still a path issue when loading a file within ParaViewWeb on Windows. Did you look at the log of that given session to see if any error is printed? You can try to edit the file [lib/site-packages]/paraview/web/protocols.py within the ParaView application (The [...] part is

[Paraview] Animating a function of a field

Dear Paraview, I have a 3d unstructured mesh with two fields defined over it - f(x,y,z) and g(x,y,z) I want to create a movie of a following function h(t) = f * sin(t) + g * cos(t) where t is time. How would you do it? Best regards, Aleksejs Fomins PhD Student in Nanophotonics, EPF Lausanne,

Re: [Paraview] slicing a large VTK_POLYHEDRON

Hello for your information there is a bug in the slicing of vtkPolyHedron that can cause a segfault. It looks very much like your error. It has yet to be corrected. https://gitlab.kitware.com/vtk/vtk/issues/16877 You can already test this "work in progress" branch to see if this fixes your issue

Re: [Paraview] Still Render in PV5.2.0 takes longer time than in PV4.4.0

For the new OpenGL2 backend setting ImmediateModeRendering or UseDisplayLists or something similar has no impact. Those concepts are part of the legacy OpenGL API. So you should see no difference in timings with them turned on or off with the new OpenGL backend. On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:42 AM,

Re: [Paraview] Still Render in PV5.2.0 takes longer time than in PV4.4.0

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM, David E DeMarle wrote: > Is this with OpenGL1 or 2 back end? If you are using Kitware's binaries 4.4 > will be OpenGL1 and 5.2 will be OpenGL2. If you built from source or got it > from a distro then it might be otherwise. A way to tell

Re: [Paraview] Still Render in PV5.2.0 takes longer time than in PV4.4.0

Is this with OpenGL1 or 2 back end? If you are using Kitware's binaries 4.4 will be OpenGL1 and 5.2 will be OpenGL2. If you built from source or got it from a distro then it might be otherwise. David E DeMarle Kitware, Inc. R Engineer 21 Corporate Drive Clifton Park, NY 12065-8662 Phone:

Re: [Paraview] difference in the output of co-processing

Hi Andy, No, i am using same PV installation in both case under same server. As you suggested, i saved the state in Python format and run under GUI (Tools > Python Shell > Run Script). It basically opens a new RenderView and places the color bars like in co-processing output (misplaced,

[Paraview] some more questions about Catalyst

Hi Andy, Thanks for your reply! Now I can run the CxxFullExample, but I've encountered some more problems about it. 1.The CxxFullExample has a 70x60x44 unstructured grid, and it runs relatively quickly. A truncated sample output of Timer Log is as follows: RenderView::Update, 0.161069