[Yt-dev] HaloProfiler vs. enzo_anyl

[Matthew Turk]

Hi John,

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM, John Wise <jwise at astro.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> I was going to reply that I thought we should choose between #3 or #1
>> (or do it in that order), but now I think #3 is a safer bet. What
>> comes to mind is if you're going to want to post-calculate cooling
>> times, you're going to have to make sure you set up your simulation
>> correctly. Does your cooling depend on metallicity, and which
>> metallicity fields? Gotta save those. So while you're at it, might as
>> well just go ahead and save cooling times, too. The only reason not to
>> save a field if you're otherwise able is for storage concerns, but if
>> you're doing something that big, you'll be clever enough to figure out
>> a solution to this conundrum on your own.
>
> I agree with this.  After thinking about it and reading Britton's response, I think #3 would be the best option.  A possible solution to calculating the cooling time post-runtime would be to add a command line option to Enzo that adds the CoolingTime to the data, similar to the potential field output command line option.  The catch is that you'd have to make sure that you use the same version as you ran the simulation.

I agree, that would be great.  Do you think this is straightforward?
I have looked before at the WritePotential stuff, but I'm not sure I'm
the best person to add this.

-Matt

>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Yt-dev mailing list
> Yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>