Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Molecular orbital rendering with Flying Edges is incorrect (negative mesh) #1827

Closed
ghutchis opened this issue Nov 29, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1853
Closed

Molecular orbital rendering with Flying Edges is incorrect (negative mesh) #1827

ghutchis opened this issue Nov 29, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1853
Assignees

Comments

@ghutchis
Copy link
Member

Here's a rendering of the LUMO for benzene (file is attached - unzip to get benzene.fchk):
Screenshot 2024-11-28 at 7 20 43 PM

With the current code, I get a very different look:
Screenshot 2024-11-28 at 7 22 43 PM

The problem is with the mesh for the negative isosurface (it's the mesh2 in the code). The code sets m_reverseWinding and inverts the iso value (i.e., not 0.03 but -0.03)

For example, the triangles are a bit weird too:
Screenshot 2024-11-28 at 7 28 06 PM

benzene.fchk.zip

@ghutchis
Copy link
Member Author

@perminder-17 - any thoughts on this? It seems as if the Flying Edges is gluing together the two parts of the mesh even though the isovalues are very small.

@perminder-17
Copy link
Contributor

Hmm..probably the issue behind is with m_reverseWinding. I'll check it very soon, in marching cubes algorithm we sets the vertices and normals by looking at the m_reverseWinding but in flying-edges I think I have missed that. I'll fix it very soon, Sorry for the oversight.

@ghutchis
Copy link
Member Author

No worries, I should have tested more carefully. I'm just working towards a release in mid-December, so everything is getting tested more rigorously.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants