3d surface projections #36
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ewbellec
approved these changes
Feb 23, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All good to me. It looks a bit strange when there's no specific features on the surface (same for my particles). I could maybe try adding some "depth" feeling using transparency but it already looks good enough.
It's can be a simple way to compare surface strain between different scans without having to open them all in paraview.
|
We can also play the "interpolation" parameter in the matplotlib matshow function to get a smoother result |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Starting from @ewbellec's code (see ISSUE #29), I implemented the 3d surface projection in the pipeline.
The views together with their associated axes should be consistent with the 3D views provided by Paraview or Vedo.