Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 10, 2017. It is now read-only.

Do we still need downsample_trace? #575

Open
micheles opened this issue Jan 24, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

Do we still need downsample_trace? #575

micheles opened this issue Jan 24, 2017 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@micheles
Copy link
Contributor

micheles commented Jan 24, 2017

Now both ComplexFaultSurfaces and SimpleFaultSurfaces store the original edges, so we could use those instead of downsampling. If the original edges are not available, should be considered an error?

@micheles micheles added this to the Engine 2.3.0 milestone Jan 24, 2017
@micheles micheles self-assigned this Jan 24, 2017
@g-weatherill
Copy link
Contributor

Can you point to the PR that added the original edges to the surfaces? The downsampling was added because we float the ruptures across the mesh from the whole fault, and store the rupture surface geometry as a mesh for each ruptures. However, the rupture mesh will only cover part of the full fault trace, so purpose of the function is to remove the points in the trace that all lie within the same azimuth in order that the rupture surface can be treated as a set of equivalent planes without generating large numbers of small aligned planes, which would be computationally expensive and redundant for GC2.

@micheles
Copy link
Contributor Author

The attribute .surface_nodes was added in #554

@daniviga daniviga removed this from the Engine 2.3.0 milestone Feb 15, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants