Plot anomalies Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

FlexPDE User's Forum » User Postings » Plot anomalies « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bernd Vosseler (bernd)
Member
Username: bernd

Post Number: 5
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 05:41 am:   

Dear Robert (or whoever else can help),

my export routine to MatLab, which I need for post-processing simulation rsults, had become pretty stable -- as long as I was not using any Layers in my 3d-problem.
To me, it doesn't look like a badly formulated problem descriptor. Could there be something wrong with FlexPDE's plot engine?

Best regards,
Bernd Vosseler

I am exporting my Temperature fields by writing plots along lines in y-direction in .txt-files and putting them all back together in MatLab.

Now I introduced layers into my problem, and suddenly things don't work anymore: I am getting empty plots along some lines. I found out, that they come in adjacent pairs, eg. line 104 and 105. I tried to get rid of them by either slightly tilting them with respect to the y-axis or by avoiding border points as start/stop points, but neither worked.
What's the problem and how can I handle it? The attached Files are my prolem descriptor, one proper output and one empty output.

Best regards, Bernd Vosseler
application/octet-stream
folienbatch2.pde (4.7 k)
text/plain
Surf_Temp2x103_1.txt (5.3 k)
text/plain
Surf_Temp2x104_1.txt (0.3 k)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert G. Nelson (rgnelson)
Moderator
Username: rgnelson

Post Number: 710
Registered: 06-2003
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 06:23 pm:   

It appears to me that you have taken your elevations exactly on the top surface of the domain, where roundoff errors in positioning of nodes or computing intersections can make the elevation trace appear to be outside the domain and therefore absent.

I suggest you take your traces at a z-level that is unambiguously inside the figure, like z=-0.01*dicke. When you do this, all the traces have data.

I have to wonder why it is necessary to take all these elevations. What is wrong with the exported data from the top surface contour? You can increase the number of points if you want. Use "points=100" or whatever density you need.

Also, you can speed this problem up enormously if you leave the features out of the substrate. Use the declaration:
limited feature 'spot2' layer 2
start (-dotx,0) arc (center=0,0) angle=360
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bernd Vosseler (bernd)
Member
Username: bernd

Post Number: 6
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 03:55 am:   

Hello Robert,

thanks for your answer, especially the hint with the features speeded Things up from 17min to 3min -- not bad, if you run them by the dozen to do parameter evaluations.

I need the elevation exports, because the 2d export routine does not output accurate data. To illustrate the point, here are Matlab Plots of the same problem -- the first one is using

contour(Temp) on surface 3 EXPORT file=... points=400

the other one uses

REPEAT i= 0 to 160
elevation(Temp) from (i/2-40,-breite_links,-0.01) to (i/2-40,breite_rechts,-0.01) as "Temp at x="+$i EXPORT file = ...
ENDREPEAT

Why do my data get noisy, when I export them as 2d Plots?

Best regards, Bernd.

Output generated by "contour .. EXPORT"Output generated by multiple elevation plots
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert G. Nelson (rgnelson)
Moderator
Username: rgnelson

Post Number: 714
Registered: 06-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 03:30 pm:   

I thought I had cured this problem back in February, but apparently not. You should have complained before.

I will try to track down this error and post a correction.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bernd Vosseler (bernd)
Member
Username: bernd

Post Number: 7
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 03:57 am:   

Ahhh, now it's smoooth!

Thank you, it's quite impressive how quick a complaint turns into a new release!

I got you wrong in back in February -- I thought, you were correcting the error that lead to empty plots, so I had my workaround.
Seems I were just lucky, that the empty plots did not show up again (I'm doing simulations rather unfrequently)

Best regards,
Bernd Vosseler

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration