[Gmsh] gmsh: bug report
David.Colignon at ulg.ac.be
Mon Nov 12 09:55:36 CET 2007
the attached .geo file works very well. Can you send us a .geo files which doesn't work ?
Also, the definition of Physical entities has no impact on the meshing, it is just a way to tag meshed entities in the
.msh file and to decide which entities are saved in the .msh file.
David Colignon, Ph.D.
ACE - Applied & Computational Electromagnetics
Institut Montefiore B28
Université de Liège
4000 Liège - BELGIQUE
Tél: +32 (0)4 366 37 32
Fax: +32 (0)4 366 29 10
daniela.wulf at arcor.de wrote:
> Oh! I'm sorry!
> But now it is attached!
> ----- Original Nachricht ----
> Von: David Colignon <David.Colignon at ulg.ac.be>
> An: daniela.wulf at arcor.de
> Datum: 09.11.2007 15:43
> Betreff: Re: [Gmsh] gmsh: bug report
>> daniela.wulf at arcor.de wrote:
>>> Dear ladies and gentlemen,
>>> I think there is a problem combining tetrahedrons and triangles: I wanted
>> to discretize a kind of "window". The pane has to be discretized by
>> tetrahedrons. The frame is made up by a thin sheet. Therefore, I said the
>> small side surfaces to be Physical Surfaces. The Volume (the pane) is
>> defined physical as well. The mesh generated by gmsh contains triangles that
>> are not connected. In this case even a triangle that is completely free
>> occurs. Meshing only the frame (by not saying the volume to be physical)
>> yield a nice and connected mesh. I have already tried to use both
>>> I have attached the geo-file to this email.
>> Are you sure ?
>>> Also some days ago, I had to change the 3d mesh algorithm to receive a
>> connected mesh for a similar object. (The frame was modeled as volume
>> instead of a sheet.) Here, the triangles were not connected to the
>> tetrahedron. But they were connected using the other 3d-algorithm.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Daniela Wulf
>>> gmsh mailing list
>>> gmsh at geuz.org