Hmm, this looks to me like it could be fixed by smoothing onto the
final field, rather than an intermediate step. Does that match your
expectations? If so, in the past we've had ways to declaring that
some fields are derived at the level of the final result. Perhaps
anything in the "deposit" namespace could be special-cased that way.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Backing up, there seems to be issues with creating smoothed covering grids
> of any deposited particle field.
> Take for example the following script:
> This produces the following traceback:
> To fix the error, I tried making the following modification to yt:
> Unfortunately this doesn't help because the smoothed covering grid's
> _fill_fields function never gets called, which means _initialize_level_state
> never gets called either. I'm poking around in the smoothed covering grid
> to try to fix this but any help from someone who's more familiar with this
> part of the code would be very much appreciated.
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <email@example.com>
>> Hi all,
>> I'd like to setup deposition fields for particle velocities. This means
>> doing a mass-weighted nearest neighbor or cloud-in-cell deposition of the
>> particle velocities in a grid dataset. I'm using this to analyze the
>> stellar velocity dispersions in a simulation, so it's much more convenient
>> to have the particle velocities interpolated onto a grid to calculate the
>> local velocity dispersion using a 3D convolution.
>> Does anyone have an example of setting up a particle deposition field? If
>> not, where should I look in the source?
>> Thanks for your help!
> yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev mailing list