You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Perhaps, it is better to remove the "forceCylinder" option and use only cones to define the annex torii surfaces.
What do you think? Do you see any reason to keep cylinders as annex surface for torus (of course except in the case in which the cone parameters degenerate to a cylinder)?
I have found that tracking on cones in MCNP is significantly slower than cylindrical surfaces. This might be one reason for keeping the "forceCylinders" option. It probably shouldn't be an option though, rather the code just uses cylinders where it can and cones where it cannot.
Describe the bug
There is an issue converting toridal surfaces with 'forceCylinders' set to 'True'. See images of CAD and conversion below.
This seems to be due to the radius of the cylinder limiting the extent of the toroidal surface being set to the minimum of d1 or d2.
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
for example:
Expected behavior
This is the geometry you would expect to see.
It appears that when inSurf is true the maximum value of d1 or d2 is required.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: