[quadrupole]

I kind of have the same problem – it seems that the .vti files contain several parts of the geometry in question.rnrnAs for paraview, you can easily visualize streamlines by using the “”Streamtracer”” filter. In paraview you apply filters to your data pipeline and that will modify your data, so that the next filter can operate on that as well. For visualising planes you have the “”Slice”” filter. Apply a slice and then the “”Generate Surface vectors”” filter. You can select ‘parallel’ as a option and this will project your vectors onto that plane. Then I would use the “”Glyph”” filter with the velocity field as input to visualise the streamlines. You can do this wit the stream tracer too. Honestly paraview is great, you can create some customizable filters if what exists is not what you want. rnrnHave a look here to get started with what you need: http://www.aerodynamic-solutions.com/help/knowledge-base/help/kb/article/creating-surface-vectors-with-paraviewrnrn

[quadrupole]

This is perhaps a stupid question, but I am not used to the vtk format that is output from a simulation in OpenLB. For example after running the cylinder2d example, I can open up the simulation data with paraview located in cylinder2d/tmp/vtkData/data and here we have files that seem to be grouped according to time and some type of block structure:

Code:

cylinder2d_iTXXXXiCYYYY.vti

. For the standard case it seems for each time step we have 7 blocks corresponding to the zones of the mesh geometry. Why isn’t the output just combined in a single file? Is there a way to combine all of the geometry and time files into a single file so that I can “”play”” forward in time while looking at the entire geometry an not just per block?

[quadrupole]

Hi Robin,rnrnMany thanks for your quick response. I have saved a video of an openFoam case which illustrates what I mean as I realise my explanation is not great 🙂 You can see it here: https://youtu.be/yXXGCwu8G9grnrnFor the time being I am interested in only simulating a single passage because I want to get a high resolution of the flow field but in the future maybe simulating the entire geometry is simpler. I am also wondering what the kind of parallel capabilities of the code are currently? I am looking at openLB as an alternative to classic CFD solutions for low mach number, low Reynolds number flow. The codes I am using have been scaling with large simulations utilising 16,000 cores and more, and I am wondering if openLB will allow the same? Otherwise due to the size of simulations involved its a no go for me.rnrnThanks!rnrnPS for some reason I don’t get reply alerts via email on the forums so apologies if I take some time to reply!rnrn

[Author]

Posts