Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • $\begingroup$ So, spatial refinement for boundary meshes is not implemented yet in Mathematica then? Too bad :( Your workaround is nice, if one would need a smoother transition in triangle sizes, then more subparts are necessary right? Calling distmesh from FEMAddOns migth be another option then I guess. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 2, 2021 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Oscillon From @user21's comment, it appears that it is not implemented. You would need more subparts for a smoother transition. I tried "IncludePoints", but I could not get that to work on boundary meshes in 3D. I also looked at the details of DistMesh and it works for 2D only. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 2, 2021 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ Using the distmesh v1.1 from the authors webpage in matlab, I got a refined mesh with distmeshsurface(). If I find the time I will try to port it to mathematica. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ Wow that is quite an inspiring workaround :) One might nitpick that there is still a circular edge around the pole due to the uncapping, but in lieu of a better answer I will accept yours. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 8:20