Hi @Makis,
Thank you for the response. Could you help me correct the second config? The idea behind that approach is that, I wanted ‘read-consistent’ for both the directions.
The first config works fine with the communication and mapping when the mesh on both solvers are conforming, but when the fire solver has a fine grid, the adjacent cells (neighbours) in the structural solver (dummy) are not the same in fire solver (see below image).
The image is from the fire solver and it shows the location (purple color) received from structural solver. In structural solver, the location are next to each other. On the other hand, in fire solver with finer mesh the locations are not next to each other.
For this reason, I looked into the discussion forum and found a solution (Data mapping not allowed for parallel computation), where both directions are ‘read-consistent’. I tried this in the above setup and it worked (see image below).
This image has same settings as before and even the locations from structural solver are all same. And the second config file gives me this result (which is what I expected).
So, i replaced the structural solver with actual structural solver without disturbing the precice. Here, when read the results of structural solver in the fire solver, I am not getting the location values that I send from structural solver.
This is why I was wondering what could have happened and I hit a dead end. So could you help me sort this out?
Thanks & Regards,
Arul
P.S: The end goal is to have a config-file that works well with the mapping and communication even when the meshes are not conforming.