|Message: Replicas vs Navigation for large voxel numbers||Not Logged In (login)|
Click on the Forum title, e.g. on the "Forums by Category" page, to read a sequence of postings to the Forum and its threads all in one page. If you are only interested in one thread or the thread following a specific posting, click the thread or the posting, which takes you to a smaller page, which contains only the part you are interested in and may be easier to navigate.
Messages are "chained" if there are only replies at the first level, i.e. 1/1.html, 1/1/1.html etc. In case of "chained" messages the message number is replaced by the icon and there is no indentation.
Inline: Display the subject line only or also the text of the posting(s); for the choice "All" the "Outline" choices are switched off.
|1||0||1||no text / full text of posting|
|2||1||All||text for level 1 only / text for All postings|
Outline: Choose the depth of the posting thread, successive toggle controls provide increasing detail.
|1||2||1||2 levels / 1 level (original posting)|
|2||3||2||3 levels / 2 levels|
|3||3||All||3 levels / all levels (all postings)|
I'm setting up a simulation for a liquid argon TPC which has a very fine grained readout over large volumes, meaning that we need to record the energy deposits in the simulated liquid volume on scales of 1-5mm over volumes of 1-10 cubic metres. I've experimented with several ways to set up the geometry of the liquid volume to allow scoring on this scale, but wanted to get some advice on the 'best' way to do this and how this will affect the accuracy of scoring the energy deposits.
As the liquid volume is completely homogeneous, I've tried three approaches (with all other aspects of the simulation, physics especially, the same):
Phantom parameterisation doesn't appear to scale - I used the DICOM example as a basis, with all voxels having the same material - seeming because of the large indexing array needed with 1e9 voxels (I don't rule out that I set it up incorrectly though!).
Replica volumes work, but are at least 10x slower than the 'virtual' navigation method. Plus, we may need to use cubic voxels inside a cylindrical volume, and 'virtual' navigation would seem ideal here as no extra geometry needs setting up and it's independent of the volume being scored. It would therefore seem to be a good way to go, but since it only uses the geometric step information, will I need to make corrections to the energy deposit in each voxel due to multiple scattering as is done in G4PSDoseDeposit_RegNav? Is there anything else to watch out for to ensure accurate scoring when only using the geometric step information?
Hopefully, I'm on the right track, but I'd be grateful for any corrections/advice/recommendations on this! It does seem to be a very similar problem to that addressed by regular navigation so perhaps I'm just missing something!
|Inline Depth:||Outline Depth:||Add message:|