hi Matt, have you ever evaluated Tetgen? How do you think about the quality of the 3D mesh it generated?
see u pan --- Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/2/07, Jianing Shi <jianings at gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, let me rephrase my question. So the mesh > support in PETSc > > already includes the functionality of partitioning > meshes, I guess, > > using ParMetis, is that the case? Something that > an end user need to > > worry about is really how to generate a mesh that > is tailored towards > > his/her application. > > It can use a range of partioners, like Chaco for > instance. > > > I am trying to write a library on top of PETSc > meshes that will > > generate meshes according to some neurophysiology. > I would like to > > know what are the mesh generate softwares out > there that will > > interface nicely with PETSc, or if it makes sense > for me to write my > > own? Just would like to understand more about the > data structure in > > the PETSc ALE::Mesh classes. Is there any > tutorial out there apart > > from looking at the source code in the mesh > directory? > > 1) No, it makes no sense for you to write a mesh > generator > > 2) In 2D, Triangle. In 3d, the only free things are > TetGen and Netgen. I support > TetGen. Hopefully, CMU will release its MG soon. > > There is a tutorial on the website. > > > I am currently using the petsc-2.3.2-p3. Is there > any new > > functionality about meshes in the development > version? > > All the working stuff is in petsc-dev. > > Matt > > > Jianing > -- > One trouble is that despite this system, anyone who > reads journals widely > and critically is forced to realize that there are > scarcely any bars to eventual > publication. There seems to be no study too > fragmented, no hypothesis too > trivial, no literature citation too biased or too > egotistical, no design too > warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation > of results too > inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no > analysis too self-serving, > no argument too circular, no conclusions too > trifling or too unjustified, and > no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to > end up in print. -- > Drummond Rennie > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
