ofc

So thencyou dont go larger

thats another way to think

But if it is efficient to make it in all directions bigger probably not

so this kinda of mesh is not good?

No independent of the mesh itself

I thoughtbyou were talking about the size of the field itself

LxLxL

Size of the blockmesh, domain size

yeah

thats what im referring to?

lemme reframe my question

im studying an mesh that is fitted to the object so let's say im doing flow around a spheroid, my outer fluid domain mesh is also a spheroid thats scalled up but usually, the length from the inlet to the body is shorter than the body to the outlet, but by scaling, all the distances will be equal and my concern is this a waste of resources? should i truncate the intial length somehow?

turns out in the paper, they used 30D everywhere, my mesh logic is also incorrect, since they use a spherid of ratio of almost 1 for the outer fluid domain since an obvisous scaling of the inside 6:1 spheroid would make no sense

I have an idea, you can do a oval shaped. And then slice the mesh this way the inlet gets closer

i dont get you?

Instead of a sphere create it more like an oval so elongated along the flow, and then cut part on one of the elongated sides

You will get an egg pretty much

ohhh

yeh i get it

New paper idea 😮

lol

I think the sphere itself is really nice where the object itself becomes a source term. Like cooling/heating sphere

Open a new file create a cube in geom, go to smesh define gmsh with all params you want compute it the go to file/dump file and save a python script there you will see how to define all parameters.

How about the line I create in the geometry, that Netgen wants to follow

you can not skip it is the seam of the cad model, you can set a different 1D refinement so you get elements near the edge similar to the rest. use a same max size as min size and you will get a more or less, equlateral mesh with equal triangle sizes.

I suck at meshing how to get good

use AMR

all my homies hate AMR

Wanted to ask about something: I am currently running the following: cartesianMesh (cfmesh) which uses all cores to save the mesh into the constant folder Then I have to decompose the case and only the can I run parallel mesh checks to check if the mesh is good. The decompose step takes a long time and I would like to skip it if I can. I have not been able to figure it out as Im just constantly getting errors thrown at me. Does anyone know if you can run cfmesh in parallel to immedietely decompose the mesh into the subdirectories?