Closed LudwigBoess closed 1 year ago
Hi again
I do not intend to comment more on this now as agreed in #11, but I want to highlight the Dehnen & Aly link is not working for me:
Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again.
And I would like to read it :)
You have a valid point that for the neighbour search algorithm, having a unified kernel formulation would make that easier. Perhaps we should make a pro and cons list in a few weeks from now (to allow space for thoughts to form)
Kind regards
Oh, sorry about the link and thanks for letting me know! :)
This one should work: Dehnen & Aly (2012)
Hi, I just wanted to say that I also prefer the convention of Gadget, so you are not alone. (Only that I don't call h smoothing length but support radius to avoid confusion. ) I authored SmoothedParticles.jl package where I put into documentation that the package is compatible with SPHkernels.jl. I would not be very happy if the convention suddenly changed. Of course, it would be totally fine as a backward-compatible optional variant.
I'm closing this issue for now, let's stick to the Gadget convention until major arguments against it come up.
As discussed in #11 we should decide how to proceed with the kernel definition.
Currently the package follows the convention of for example Gadget, which is uncommon compared to other SPH codes. ( For a discussion on this see e.g. Dehnen & Aly (2012), Section 2. )
This convention has the advantage of making the switch between kernels easier, for example in the neighbour search (to my knowledge, feel free to prove me wrong!).