New rotating clump without wind fly throughs
Took the wind out of the problem module and added "res" and "temperature," which can be edited for each simulation in the problem.data. Temperature is added to the clump and the res is added to the "Projection Movie." In both simulations they have a res=300 even though they have 1 level of amr. You can see you can see the affect by adding mesh in visit (the image with the mesh is from the second visualization):
problem.data file for this run:
&ProblemData rho=10 radius=1 temperature=.1 res=300 ncameras=5 / &CameraData pos=-10,4,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=1,0,0 time=0d0 / &CameraData pos=-5,4,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=0,1,0 time=.25d0 / &CameraData pos=0,4,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=0,0,1 time=.5d0 / &CameraDatasee by adding the mesh to the visualization pos=5,4,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=0,1,0 time=.75d0 / &CameraData pos=10,4,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=1,0,0 time=1d0 /
Here we have 5 cameras with a starting position of pos=-10,4,-10 that is viewing the clump in the box with an up vector in the y-direction until frame 25 where it switches perspective and moves along the x direction toward positive 10. So the simulation looks like it is moving around while we move in the x-direction over time.
problem.data for this run:
&ProblemData rho=10 radius=1 temperature=.1 res=300 ncameras=4 / &CameraData pos=-10,8,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=0,1,0 time=0d0 / &CameraData pos=-10,-8,14 focus=2,0,0 upvector=0,0,1 time=.33d0 / &CameraData pos=14,-8,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=1,0,0 time=.66d0 / &CameraData pos=-10,8,-10 focus=2,0,0 upvector=0,1,0 time=1d0 /
Here I am using 4 cameras. In this simulation I attempted to rotate the clump while zooming toward and away from it. The visualization is also continuous as the first and last camera have the same parameters. I think this is quite nice and I prefer this visualization to the first one.
Focus and up vectors
Today I ran seven simulations that play with the CameraData in the problem.data file. I focused on the up vector as well as the focus of the camera. For two cameras I played with a focus {1, 0, 0} and {3, 0, 0} as the previously done simulations have a focus of {2, 0, 0} for all cameras. The simulations I ran with three cameras have the second camera switch up vectors, as well as have cameras switch into ascending or descending order based on the three focuses we know already (1, 2 and 3).
Two Cameras
Run description | Image Final Frame | No. of Frames | CameraData File | Link to movie |
2 cameras, both up vectors in y, with focus of 1 in x | 50 | problem.data | camera movie | |
2 cameras, both up vectors in y, with focus of 3 in x | 50 | problem.data | camera movie |
Three Cameras
Run description | Image Final Frame | No. of Frames | CameraData File | Link to movie |
3 cameras; first and last camera have up vectors in y; second camera has an up vector in x | 100 | problem.data | camera movie | |
3 cameras; all cameras have up vectors in y | 100 | problem.data | camera movie | |
3 cameras; first and last camera have up vectors in y; second camera has an up vector in z | 100 | problem.data | camera movie | |
3 cameras; all up vectors in y with ascending focus from 1-3 in x | 100 | problem.data | camera movie | |
3 cameras; all up vectors in y with descending focus from 3-1 in x | 100 | problem.data | camera movie |
A brief comparison considering frame and final times with camera sims
Below I have a table of visualized simulations I ran of a clump and a wind from last week's blog posts:
For each of these little tests I changed the final time and frame number in the global.data file. There is a time for the camera in the problem.data file, so I am also interested in whether or not that time has to be equal to t-final or not and how that affects the simulation if it is changed. No matter the number of frames, the simulation will play out to the same point. Essentially the t-final in the global.data acts as a frame rate, or temporal resolution. You can see that 0.1 final time simulations have a wind that hasn't even hit the clump yet by the end of the run. For the 0.25 simulations, the wind hits it by the end, and in 0.5 the wind envelopes the clump. The number of files, bovs or chombos do not bear on what is "physically happening."
The "camera movies" are made in VisIt like how we would make a visualized bov movie. The camera movies are projections, however they are not necessarily "down the barrel," like what we are use to.
In the chombo simulations I took a slice down the y-axis in VisIt. We know for the camera movies the camera movies along the x-axis, which is does also in Visit. It is a projection of a 3D simulation so we do not need a "z" axis.
In each simulation there are two cameras. One is positioned at pos=-10,2,-10 and the other at pos=8,2,-10. So it is changing in the x-direction, but keeps focused on the same object as it moves away from it. Both cameras have a focus of 2 in the x-direction.
So the camera is positioned outside of the box and integrates the density through the domain - in essence it is a column density map.
Why I did this is because there is a time for each camera in the problem.data file. For the nth camera, should we have its time equal to the final computational time in the global.data file?
0.1 Final Time | 0.25 Final Time | 0.50 Final Time | |
10 Frames | |||
camera movie, 10 bovs | camera movie, 10 bovs | camera movie, 10 bovs | |
chombo movie, 10 chombos | chombo movie, 10 chombos | chombo movie, 10 chombos | |
25 Frames | |||
camera movie, 25 bovs | camera movie, 25 bovs | camera movie, 50 bovs | |
chombo movie, 25 chombos | chombo movie, 25 chombos | chombo movie, 25 chombos | |
50 Frames | |||
camera movie, 50 bovs | camera movie, 50 bovs | camera movie, 50 bovs | |
chombo movie, 50 chombos | chombo movie, 50 chombos | chombo movie, 50 chombos |
Fly through test 2
Yesterday I got a new code and checked out development. I then made a new problem directory in my code to run Jonathan's problem module and .data files from BH2. The code made eventually after fixing the HYPRE path and CPP errors. It seems we didn't see the clump with the first test as I ran a 2D simulation, so this time my global.data has nDim = 3 and Gmx = 32, 16, 16. I ran the executable twice for 0 and 2 levels of AMR (see results below). I ran them both out for 100 frames, so the camera seems to move from one position to the next at a slower rate in comparison to Jonathan's simulation that only has a few frames.
Currently I am trying to understand how the camera works and run some simulations with a different camera position, focus and up vector. I'll post those results once they are done.