Hi @Pascale.Parrein !

Nice to see you on the forum. I hope you are well.

Sorry if that sounds obvious, but have you set the Is Volume? parameter to 1:

Dear Sandrine,

Thank you for your reply. I am fine. I hope you as well.

For sure, I placed the Is_Volume = 1 when this is required. I send you a sumup of my test.

I placed inside a hexagonal shape with a given material a source and a detector at the end.

I tested several ways to do an hexagonal shape and detailes the different results on the detector.

The most astonishing thing is when I placed a cylinder shape inside the polygonal being made of the same material, it doesn’t see a continuous shape !

Please find attached the .pdf of the results and the program in .zar

I would be gratefull if you could advise on these results.

Have a nice day,

Regards

Pascale

Hi Pascale!

I’m good thank you!

I checked your file and it seems like you need to define the front and the back for that object to be changed into a volume. I also moved your source as you need to tell the software when a source starts inside a volume, and the volume has to be defined before the source in that case.

Let me know if it helps.

Dear Sandrine,

Thank you. Effectivelly, this was a big mistake not to put the source inside the object. Sorry about that. 

However, taking care of this important point, I went further into the different ways to model a polygonal and I am surprise to obtain differents results.  

I abandonned the approach of Polygon Object because this is not convenient to define the front and back and then the results are very strange and not consistent at all with this approach. 

I focalised to the Zemax Part Designer with two approaches.

I placed a source of 1W size 60x60µm2

1 inside the polygon

2 inside a cylinder ( 160µm diameter ) placed inside the polygon and of the same material as the polygon

and I collected the total power at the end of the polygon

I would expect that there are no difference between the results

1 for both of the polygon modeling  => there is a small difference of about 1.5% ( repeatable not due to unsufficient rays number)

2 with and without the cylinder since there is a material continuity. = > there is an important difference with and without the cylinder and according to the polygon modeling approach. 

I wounder what is missing in the approach to properly model the continuity of the material ?

Thank you

Regards

Pascale

Hi Pascale

I have attached the model with 2 configurations just to be sure we have the same starting point. 

So the difference comes from errors in the ray tracing.

If I ran again a ray trace in configuration 2 and untick Ignore Errors, the software says:

So actually it may be that I need to adjust the non-sequential settings for the raytracing in the 2nd configuration. For example, using Simple Ray Splitting solves the issue.

So I guess I would just go for the 1st simulation since it is simpler.

Let me know if that helps!

OK thank you Sandrine.

I didn’t figure out that the energy error was high comparing to the total energy.

I will check everything and let you know.

Thanks for your help have a nice week end,

Pascale

No problem. Have a lovely weekend too!