You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I ran find-orientations and fit-grains on the single GE ruby example problem, and some of the results differed in nontrivial ways.
For scan 0 (there were 6 scans done by the script), the orientations (exp_map) and the centroids (t_vec) were very close, but the completeness of the reference example was 99.6% while the newly computed value was 94.3%. Also, the logarithmic strains in the new results were all above 1e-4 in magnitude, while the reference values were nearly an order of magnitude smaller.
I ran find-orientations and fit-grains on the single GE ruby example problem, and some of the results differed in nontrivial ways.
For scan 0 (there were 6 scans done by the script), the orientations (exp_map) and the centroids (t_vec) were very close, but the completeness of the reference example was 99.6% while the newly computed value was 94.3%. Also, the logarithmic strains in the new results were all above 1e-4 in magnitude, while the reference values were nearly an order of magnitude smaller.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: