|Message: Re: 2 GDML Questions||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)|
Thank you both very much for your responses. Very kind of you to take the time.
Witek: Regarding the GDML modules being read in: I understand they work the way they do, I guess I was just wondering if there was a simply way to have them read in only once. I like the module concept because it means I can separate out parts and run simulations on specific “sub-assemblies”. For now, I’m just commenting out my call to a materials file except for the top-most level file. Not a big deal, just didn’t want to be doing that extra work every time if there was a shortcut. It would be great if at some point an “if not read...” could be addd in!
And yes, I used to always include elements in mixtures and it worked just fine. Of course, this is not a problem to define separate elements and materials; I was just curious.
Vladimir: I didn’t know there was a flag to turn off the multiple materials warning. Of course, I think the warning makes sense not just from a logic standpoint, but from a memory standpoint. Your point #5 I agree with. If a material is redefined, it could greatly reduce memory requirements if it was not re-created. A warning would still probably be pertinent.