You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm listing this as a separate issue from Issue #1406 because I think they are unrelated. To be honest, I cannot tell if this is a real issue or not.
Bug report
When making surfaces using the radius field, I find that the surfaces almost always have zero size even for rather large data containers. When constructing surfaces with other fields, like "density", "x", etc, this does not seem to be the case.
Code for reproduction
In this script, we make a sphere with size 0.5 and 0.4 using the IsolatedGalaxy dataset. Both spheres have about 3.6 million cells. The sphere http://paste.yt-project.org/show/7153/
I think a better way to demonstrate this to set the surface value to be half of the radius, or some other value between the minimum and maximum. When I do that, I always get an empty surface.
I'm listing this as a separate issue from Issue #1406 because I think they are unrelated. To be honest, I cannot tell if this is a real issue or not.
Bug report
When making surfaces using the radius field, I find that the surfaces almost always have zero size even for rather large data containers. When constructing surfaces with other fields, like "density", "x", etc, this does not seem to be the case.
Code for reproduction
In this script, we make a sphere with size 0.5 and 0.4 using the IsolatedGalaxy dataset. Both spheres have about 3.6 million cells. The sphere
http://paste.yt-project.org/show/7153/
Actual outcome
Even when using the maximum value of the radius field, the surface is empty. This seems wrong, but that's all I can say.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: