[Paraview] camera values range 2

[Moreland, Kenneth]

Oh.  You're talking about the widgets in the camera position dialog.  I didn't realize that it was still using those stupid spin boxes.  I just checked a change into cvs that changed them to use line edits so that you could enter data at any precision.  The disadvantage of the change that it is harder to read the values after the camera is moved with the mouse.

-Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paraview-bounces at paraview.org [mailto:paraview-bounces at paraview.org]
> On Behalf Of Davide Detomi
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:00 AM
> To: paraview at paraview.org
> Subject: [Paraview] camera values range 2
>
> Moreland, Kenneth ha scritto:
> >> Hi, I'm a novice of paraview so I beg your pardon if I submit an
> already
> >> discussed problem. I had many problems playing with the camera because
> >> it seems the min-max range of the possible values spans the interval
> >> [-10000 ,+10000]. This limits sound strange to me, I wondered why it
> >> hasn't been set a much higher value. For example, in my case, I had a
> >> model in mm, thus it was easy to reach the upper and lower bound,
> >> causing a crazy behavior of the final view. Two questions about this:
> >>
> >> 1) Has anybody already faced such a problem?
> >>
> >
> > There are no set limits, but multiple readers have run into problems
> with camera movement when the geometry bounds of the data are very large
> or very small (see bug #5576
> http://www.paraview.org/Bug/view.php?id=5576).  I'm pretty sure they are
> due to some rounding issues with a 32-bit float somewhere.  However, they
> usually don't occur unless the bounds exceed +/-1e13.  I've never seen it
> on bounds as small as yours.  Can you describe your data further?
> >
> >
>
> Hi Kenneth, thanks for your reply. What I saw is that the min-max values
> of the camera spinbuttons are, as I said, [-10000,+10000]. Even trying
> to modify them by hands by clicking on the spinbutton arrows I couldn't
> exceed those values. Then I guessed they were strong bounds of the
> camera settings. My version is the 3.3.0, thus the last one, I guess.
> I've found a workaround by rescaling my mesh by a factor 1000, by doing
> this the camera works fine. However, this is clearly a temporary
> solution, just a trick to fix the problem. Can you change the camera
> bounds beyond those limits? I think my problem is not due to any
> rounding issue, but just to (strange) bounds on the min-max allowed
> camera values. And if the mesh is in mm is not that unusual to reach the
> bounds while playing with the camera.
>
>
> >> 2) Is it possible to somehow alter these bounds?
> >>
> >
> > Try using the Transform filter and apply a scale to make the bounds
> smaller.
> >
> >
>
> scaling by means of the transform filter works fine. It is the same I
> did before to fix the problem, even if at that time I did it outside
> Paraview within the mesh generator.
>
> >> Another non-related issue:
> >>
> >> 3) If I load a huge mesh (around 8 millions of elements) Paraview
> >> suddenly crashes because a failed memory allocation. Would it be
> >> possible in the future to have a smoother failure, maybe through a
> popup
> >> warning that the memory limits have been reached? This would be
> >> extremely helpful both for a cleaner behavior and to avoid a waste of
> >> time because of a not yet saved state.
> >>
> >
> > I think everyone agrees that would be ideal, but unfortunately requires
> a huge level of effort.  Also, any solution would be difficult to test and
> maintain.
> >
> > -Ken
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I understand that a clean, fully satisfactory solution it's not
> straightforward but all the crashes I got have been due to failed
> mallocs, then a first step for future releases might be a simple check
> on the allocated memory, that now I guess is sometimes missing,
> eventually popping up a warning when the allocation fails. I can imagine
> that there are many calls to mallocs all over the code, thus this may
> require some time. However, I think this effort is worthwhile and, at
> this first level, I don't think it would be too complicate to test and
> maintain.
>
> Anyway, thanks for all your hints
>
> Davide
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Davide Detomi, Post-Doc Assistant
>
> Institute of Mathematics
> Chair of Modelling and Scientific Computing
> Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
> Address: EPFL, IACS-CMCS, CH-1015 Lausanne (Switzerland)
>
> Tel. Work: +41 21 69 32909
> Fax:       +41 21 69 34303
> E-mail:    davide.detomi at epfl.ch
> Office:    MA C2 567
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ParaView mailing list
> ParaView at paraview.org
> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview