GSI Forum
GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung

Home » PANDA » PandaRoot » Bugs, Fixes, Releases » Geometry Problems
Re: Geometry Problems [message #19236 is a reply to message #19233] Wed, 20 April 2016 15:39 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Stefan Pflueger is currently offline  Stefan Pflueger
Messages: 99
Registered: February 2012
continuous participant
From: *kph.uni-mainz.de
Hi,

thx! Ok that looks indeed like these problems could be connected. Crash means the whole simulation is aborted, right? If so I never experienced this in my simulations... The errors seem like they could be coming from the strange geometry we had before. lmd_vol_cvd_disc is exactly the volume that was troublesome... would be interesting to see if these messages disappear now. I did a CheckFullGeometry() now and the only bad things I got is these warnings:

Quote:

Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_vac with 9 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_ref_sys with 2 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_half with 4 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_plane with 6 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_module with 3 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_side with 3 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_die with 6 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_die with 4 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_side with 3 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_die with 6 daughters but not voxelized
Warning in <TGeoChecker::CheckOverlaps>: Volume lmd_vol_die with 4 daughters but not voxelized


Im not sure how bad this is... what does the voxelized mean? At least the diamond support seems not to be part in it. Everything else looks clean. I just had a thought, maybe our mistake was setting the cut shape thicknesses to 1. in the old geometries. That is kind of unnecessary and could introduce some problems...

[Updated on: Wed, 20 April 2016 15:39]

Report message to a moderator

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [FIXED] Compilation "error" in pid/rich
Next Topic: New (almost) version of SciTil geometry and real digitization
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Apr 21 14:20:35 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01068 seconds