<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:575211289;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-573794788 134807569 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:54.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dan, cc’ing paraview list again in case anyone else needs the information<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">1. You suggestion of using the 'Find Data' was great, but I found that I needed to use the 'ExtractSelection' before going ahead with the 'ParticlePathlines' filter. From what you described that didn't seem
necessary. I suppose this came up particularly because in the ParticlePathlines filter once I extracted the selection I could simply set 'Mask Points' to 1 and take every particle in the carefully prepared selection. Is the extract step necessary?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">2. If ParticlePathlines is the way do to track explicit particles like mine, is there any use for the Particle Tracer outside of tracking the motion of injected seed particles over time within a vector field.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">1 The find data was just a quick way of extracting particles by ID over time and yes, you need the extract selection filter. The particle trails filter actually
has this function built in, it has a secondary optional input called ‘selection’. On this input, you simply provide a dataset with (say) a field called ID which must match the IDs on the main dataset, if the ID exists in the selection, it’ll be tracked in
the main dataset. The reason I used the find data instead of just mask points was really because I assumed your Ids were nonsense (this is the top reason that people get no trajectories), and if the Ids were no good I guessed that using the find data (by ID)
would for sure show me random movements. I could have done it using the pathline filter and mask points (and I did first time), but I was double checking to make sure things were as I thought.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Consider these cases for educational purposes ....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">case a: You have a single time snapshot of your particles, each has an ID. You save this snapshot and select some interesting subset using a selection or maskpoints
or whatever analysis you desire.. You now use this <b>static dataset</b> as the secondary selection input of the trails filter and the
<b>main original time dependent dataset</b> as the primary input *** those points with the fixed Ids from the selection are tracked from the dynamic dataset over T*** (note that if the Ids were actually wrong anyway, you’d get random tracks).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">case b: You use the “find data” dialog to extract the Ids you are interested in and then draw pathlines for them. The Id extraction will update on each timestep
and potentially give you different particles (if the Ids are wrong really). What you would now see is random tracks. I tried a and b to check your data and hit reply when b was still visible in my screenshot.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">the difference between a and b, is that a selects ID’s once and then builds tracks using the ID to find the particle. b extracts the particles using ID at each
step and constructs the trails. They’re sort of done in the opposite order and should give the same result for particular Ids. (you can combine a and b, but the pathline filter uses map and vector structures to x-ref particles, so having a large number of
Ids selected will cause memory issues when long trails are used).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">2 The Particle Tracer is for advecting particles in a vector field as you suggest and is of no use to you for what you are doing. Users of the particletracer
can add a trails (pathline) filter to view the trajectories.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">JB<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>