Frank Schultz

Good. We’ll initially provide some stuff, like get_unified_25D_WFS() general driving function get_dir_derivatives() for point/line/plane set_ref_function() for different feasible referencing schemes and SSD contours, that’s the most critical part to solve...

init dev in branch 'unified_25d_wfs'

[D, xPCS] = driving_function_mono_unified_25d_wfs(x0,xs,dx0,src,f,conf) is working as expected with the current state dab14a1cb411058083f70c9a60e32347aff473d0 Fig. 3,4,9,10 from https://doi.org/10.1109/TASLP.2017.2689245 created with this one->ok Now we need a meaningful implementation for defining a...

added a test script in 916fc76cb3d3d9f3afbeb64b63671b28bf71dbc6 that checks the driving functions.

> On 05 May 2017, at 4:50 PM, Hagen Wierstorf wrote: > > The driving functions look ok, but I think I would integrate them under the 2.5D parts of...

Hi Nils, thanks for the hint, I'll check this out. On 14.06.2016 17:59, Nils Peters wrote: > Hi Hagen, Frank > > for an AllRAD implementation, you might want to...

I'd vote for: with 2D/3D submodules sfs.plot.amplitude() -> plots the real part of a complex scalar / vector field sfs.plot.magnitude() -> plots the magnitude (i.e. abs) of a complex scalar...

> How should we call the 2D and 3D submodules? > sfs.plot and sfs.plot3d? > Any other suggestions? I'd prefer sfs.plot2D and sfs.plot3D as submodules making naming more consistent. I...

> On 8. Mar 2019, at 10:37 AM, Matthias Geier wrote: > > OK, sfs.plot2d and sfs.plot3d sound good. No need to keep sfs.plot. > That sounds very meaningful to...

Thank you for handling this!!