[gmsh] Fonctionnality request

[Christophe Geuzaine]

Thomas Gazzola wrote:
> Dear Gmsh coders,
> 
> I am a PhD student, and I use gmsh to visualize my results, because it is
> free (GPL) and because the quality of the output is awesome.
> 
> I searched in the mailing list about the post processing file format.
> I found this mailed which answered my question:
> http://www.geuz.org/pipermail/gmsh/2004/001113.html
> 
> In a few words, it says that the post processing files need the coordinate
> of each point, etc... In other words, post processing files are not linked
> to any mesh.
> 
> In the mail, Carl Osterwisch proposed:
> 
>>As a suggestion for improvement, it looks like the version 2.0 mesh
>>file format could be extended to address these issues with additional
>>headings such as:
>>$NodeView
>>Temperature
>>1 20.0
>>2 21.2
>>3 25.6
>>$EndNodeView
> 
> 
> which would be _so_ useful.
> 
> You answered in the mail that you were not sure it is worth the price.
> I think it would be a major advance, a great functionnality.
> 

Hello Thomas - It could indeed be interesting to have a "node-based"
post-processing format to reduce the file size (in the case of
continuous fields). But do you see any other advantages?

Christophe


> It is your software, it is natural that it must suit your needs first, but
> please take into account this request which I think would be useful to lot
> of people.
> 
> Thank you for reading me,
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas Gazzola
> 
> PS: I had a problem with my mail-reader, sorry if you receive this mail
> twice
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gmsh mailing list
> gmsh at geuz.org
> http://www.geuz.org/mailman/listinfo/gmsh
> 
> 


-- 
Christophe Geuzaine
Applied and Computational Mathematics, Caltech
geuzaine at acm.caltech.edu - http://geuz.org