Monday, October 3, 2011

Reaction: Over Two Decades of Integration-Based Geometric Flow Visualization

The paper includes huge amount of information related to geometric flow visualization. According to the amount of the research, I would not be surprised to see a large amount of research as much as this survey on the rest of the vector-field visualization approaches such as direct, dense texture-based, and feature based.
The terminology used in flow visualization were new to me so I had to search for the images and video that represent them (ie. streamline, streakline, pathline, streamtube, streamribbon, etc.).
It would have helped a lot if there were examples right next to the definition of the phrases but still video helped more than the images. The reflection part for each section helps to understand the status of the research area.

It seemed that the current issue or the biggest barrier in flow visualization is visual clutter and occlusion.

Virtual Wind Tunnel is a good example of visualizing computational fluid dynamics simulation.

As the paper mentions, volume and surface flow research are fewer than curve research even though there is a high need on the challenging ones. The recent research on volume flow was in 2004. It would encourage the researchers if the current issues and problems on unsteady flow fields are solved as the authors believe that there will be more efficient and simpler methods.

Q) The method of automatic seeding? Is it to automatically know the point to place the object which would produce the best result?
Q) What happens after tapering effect to the streamline? Any example?
Q) Zockler introduces illuminating streamlines in 1996. The paper mentions about clearer orientation and depth information that the illumination effect brings to the result. Would there be any other positive effects from using illumination? Would aesthetic be one of the effects?
Q) Are the simulations increasing the size of their output? Is it because the size of the displays for simulation are getting bigger?