Closed krober10nd closed 3 years ago
Couple of thoughts:
imp
by 10 iterations once this decrease in quality is triggered, which would then also apply to al mesh improvement cycles thereafter as well right? (i.e., stay at imp = 20
)Based on these thoughts why don't we just assess the change in quality after a "mesh improvement" plus one standard iteration? Then if the quality was 10% worse than before the mesh improvement just go back to that iteration, skipping the "mesh improvement". One implementation idea would be to make an array of iteration counts where we do "mesh improvements" before the iteration loop: so imp_array = [imp:imp:max_it];
which we just do a logical test to see if the current iteration is in imp_array
. Then if we find that the current "mesh improvement" cycle iteration is "bad" then remove that integer from the imp_array
.
I think it makes sense to check only after a mesh improvement step since that’s when the issue occurs primarily. The drop outs in quality in some recent cases were pretty severe so maybe we could increase the threshold test to a higher value.
I don’t have a case that fails to test it unfortunately yet
Did any of examples trigger the rewind?
No, none of the examples triggered it but I tested the rewind in some of them by removing the logic used to trigger it. It worked in Christopher Goody's example when the initial point set was distant in density from the edgefx field.