Re: [Libmesh-devel] Adaptivity problem...

[Derek G. <fri...@gm...>]

Thanks for all of the responses guys.

Roy, if you have a patch, let me at it and I'll test it a bit before
you commit it.

Yeah, I knew mine was pretty quick and dirty... but like you say...
when that presentation in 3 weeks is staring you in the face... you
just get _something_ done ;-)  As for why I did the for loop instead
of just assigning... that was mostly just for safety.  I didn't know
exactly what it would do if I used the assignment, so I did the safest
thing possible.

I'm not doing anything in 3D (for now) so I'm not worried about that.

Derek

On 7/3/07, Roy Stogner <roy...@ic...> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Roy Stogner wrote:
> >
> >> If everyone else agrees, I've had a change of heart, and I think we
> >> should commit the patch as-is.
> >
> > Where by "as-is", I mean "without new MeshRefinement flags", not
> > "without fixing it to handle non-level-1 mismatches and to avoid
> > realigning nodes that aren't on a hanging node side".
>
> The latter problem was just an efficiency question, and I suspect the
> extra-convoluted code necessary to fix the former problem more than
> outweighs any speed gains from trying to skip the redundant
> realignments.
>
> I've got a new patch which should handle level-n mismatches in 2D, and
> level-n face mismatches in 3D, but it may still leave mesh tears on
> level-2+ edge mismatches in 3D.  I'm not going to commit it to CVS
> since it adds a new helper method to Elem and I'd rather not make
> changes to elem.h that would probably need to be reverted shortly
> afterward.  I can't think of an easy way to fix the edge mismatch
> problem with AMR+smoothing; for now all I can suggest to Derek is that
> if you're doing any 3D runs you should first set
> MeshRefinement::edge_level_mismatch_limit() = 1.
> ---
> Roy
>