-boun...@paraview.org] On
Behalf Of Philippe David
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:06 AM
To: Michael Jackson
Cc: paraview@paraview.org
Subject: Re: [Paraview] 32b vs 64b and Binary vs Ascii
thanks for your feedback:
We do use in-house FEM code which also use MPI: I will cross check your
suggestio
:paraview-boun...@paraview.org
] On
Behalf Of Philippe David
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:06 AM
To: Michael Jackson
Cc: paraview@paraview.org
Subject: Re: [Paraview] 32b vs 64b and Binary vs Ascii
thanks for your feedback:
We do use in-house FEM code which also use MPI: I will cross check
your
su
;s worth, i got around this by writing binary legacy vtk files.
-m
-Original Message-
From: paraview-boun...@paraview.org [mailto:paraview-boun...@paraview.org] On
Behalf Of Philippe David
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:06 AM
To: Michael Jackson
Cc: paraview@paraview.org
Subject: Re: [Paraview]
thanks for your feedback:
We do use in-house FEM code which also use MPI: I will cross check your
suggestions. Small vtu work fine but 300mb one have problems (where it
is not obvious to manually check them). thank you again
Michael Jackson a écrit :
What code are you using to write the .vtu f
What code are you using to write the .vtu files? Is it vtk code or is
it code that you wrote for your own simulation? It sounds like it
_might_ be incorrect values in the header parts of the velocity field.
I believe .vtu files are ascii so you should be able to hand check the
values that a
we face non recurrent problem trying to read .vtu files containing
Velocity vectors.
Paraview 3.4.0 replies with "...dataArray may be too short" in some
conditions.
the vtu are written under Linux 64 :
if reading whose vtu with client "windows 32" and server "linux 64" we
quite often have th
