Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
we could also make sure different port_naming schemes for example, we use 'o1', 'o2', 'o3'.... while Floris and Troy use 'in0', 'in1', 'out1' , 'out2' @HelgeGehring had a nice idea of using a dict it would be nice also to standardize the format in which we store the sparameters What do you think of something like?
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Hi @joamatab et al,
Currently the tidy3D and MEEP interfaces use hardcoded vertical positions for the source and monitor ports in S-parameter 3D simulations.
Given the increased availability of multi core layer platforms (e.g. AMF now offers its silicon nitride layer over silicon core in MPWs), it would be nice for the simulation plugins to handle ports located in different vertical core layers for 3D simulations (and 2D vertical cross-sections, but this could be later).
This would also be a good time to add options to consider different modes for the same physical port (e.g. TE0, TM0, TE1, etc.) when calculating S-parameters.
Before I implement anything blindly, are there any thoughts on the most sensible way to include this?
Port objects already have a layer property, from which the vertical position could be read according to the layer stack. For the modes, could we add new properties like:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions