|
374 | 374 | "Here, the ``shapely`` representation may show as green, indicating a \"valid\" ``shapely`` geometry, or red as previous. This \n", |
375 | 375 | "uncertainty is due to floating point errors originating from the rotation, potentially causing these two polygons no longer share an edge.\n", |
376 | 376 | "\n", |
377 | | - "If we try to mesh this geometry, we may actually cause a crash with ``triangle``, the meshing tool used behind-the-scenes by ``sectionproperties``." |
| 377 | + "If we try to mesh this geometry, we may actually cause a crash with ``CyTriangle``, the meshing tool used behind-the-scenes by ``sectionproperties``." |
378 | 378 | ] |
379 | 379 | }, |
380 | 380 | { |
|
461 | 461 | "source": [ |
462 | 462 | "## Creating Nested Geometries\n", |
463 | 463 | "\n", |
464 | | - "This example demonstrates creating nested geometries using two different approaches. These approaches reflect the differences between how ``shapely`` (geometry pre-processor) \"perceives\" geometry, how ``triangle`` (meshing tool) \"perceives\" geometry, and how the modeller might adapt their input style depending on the situation.\n", |
| 464 | + "This example demonstrates creating nested geometries using two different approaches. These approaches reflect the differences between how ``shapely`` (geometry pre-processor) \"perceives\" geometry, how ``CyTriangle`` (meshing tool) \"perceives\" geometry, and how the modeller might adapt their input style depending on the situation.\n", |
465 | 465 | "\n", |
466 | 466 | "The nested geometry we are trying to create consists of three concentric squares with a hole at it's centre.\n", |
467 | 467 | "\n", |
|
490 | 490 | "id": "42", |
491 | 491 | "metadata": {}, |
492 | 492 | "source": [ |
493 | | - "- ``triangle`` does not have a concept of \"z-ordering\" so there is only a single plane which may have regions of different materials (specified with control points). When a hole is created in the plane, it \"punches\" through \"all\" polygons in the plane." |
| 493 | + "- ``CyTriangle`` does not have a concept of \"z-ordering\" so there is only a single plane which may have regions of different materials (specified with control points). When a hole is created in the plane, it \"punches\" through \"all\" polygons in the plane." |
494 | 494 | ] |
495 | 495 | }, |
496 | 496 | { |
|
548 | 548 | "id": "46", |
549 | 549 | "metadata": {}, |
550 | 550 | "source": [ |
551 | | - "To create the nested geometry using the ``triangle`` interface, the code would be as follows:" |
| 551 | + "To create the nested geometry using the ``CyTriangle`` interface, the code would be as follows:" |
552 | 552 | ] |
553 | 553 | }, |
554 | 554 | { |
|
623 | 623 | "source": [ |
624 | 624 | "Notice how the ``shapely`` representation shows the squares overlapping each other instead of the squares fitting into the \"hole below\".\n", |
625 | 625 | "\n", |
626 | | - "Is one of these methods better than the other? Not necessarily. The ``shapely`` approach is suitable for manually creating the geometry, whereas the ``triangle`` approach is suitable for reading in serialised data from a file, for example.\n", |
| 626 | + "Is one of these methods better than the other? Not necessarily. The ``shapely`` approach is suitable for manually creating the geometry, whereas the ``CyTriangle`` approach is suitable for reading in serialised data from a file, for example.\n", |
627 | 627 | "\n", |
628 | 628 | "And, for either case, when the compound geometry is meshed, we see this:" |
629 | 629 | ] |
|
0 commit comments