Skip to main content
Solved

Set surface for genc Merit function


Is there a way to set the surface number for a genc/genf Merit function, as i would like to work it on an intermediate surface? Thanks
Markus

Best answer by Mark.Nicholson

Yes. Use IMSF (image surface) prior to your GENC operands to define what the image surface is. It’s a really useful operand, and you can use it multiple times so you can define multiple image surfaces.

  • Mark
View original
Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

5 replies

Mark.Nicholson
Luminary
Forum|alt.badge.img+3

Yes. Use IMSF (image surface) prior to your GENC operands to define what the image surface is. It’s a really useful operand, and you can use it multiple times so you can define multiple image surfaces.

  • Mark

  • Author
  • Ultraviolet
  • 25 replies
  • January 5, 2022

Mark, great! I will try this.

Many thanks
Markus


Jeff.Wilde
Luminary
Forum|alt.badge.img+3
  • Luminary
  • 497 replies
  • January 5, 2022

Hey Mark,

Here’s a related question.  In some cases, hitting the SAVE button on a group of analysis settings forces a corresponding merit function operand to use those settings (unless explicitly overridden by one or more of the operand input values) -- a common example is IMAE.  However, this doesn’t seem to be the case for GENC & GENF. 

So, is there any way to control parameter settings that are not part of the operand input? For example, “Use Polarization” and “Scatter Rays” ?

Thx,

Jeff


Mark.Nicholson
Luminary
Forum|alt.badge.img+3

I’m afraid that kind of data handling is added on an operand-by-operand basis. You’ll need to put a feature request in to have that kind of control (via the CFG data) for any specific operand that doesn’t already support it.

  • Mark

Jeff.Wilde
Luminary
Forum|alt.badge.img+3
  • Luminary
  • 497 replies
  • January 5, 2022

That’s what I thought.  Would be nice to have more uniformity across operands in this regard.  I can toss this suggestion into the hopper, but I’m not holding my breath for a change anytime soon... 

However, on the plus side, all of the analysis options are available for control through the ZOS-API. So, if a user really wanted maximum flexibility, it looks like a UDOC operand could be implemented with a custom C++ compiled client program. Certainly doable :thinking: , but not as easy as hitting a SAVE button.


Reply


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings