FluidX3D VS HPX

Could even use this as a revers GLOBAL ORBITING SYSTEM [GoS] - Whereby a single satellite|probe dispels a lander to a planet with the Quantum Magnetic Cannister, and that QMC signals its global location to the satellite launcher, and the satellit can extrap its location based on the absolute location of the ground guys... (might need more than one ground magnet-moles?)

How can this be measured? Can fluidx3d do martian magnetics? [0]

--

[0] https://github.com/ProjectPhysX/FluidX3D

---

EDIT: "Mars does not have a magnetosphere"

ELI5: "how do electronics work when there is zero magnetic field around them? A complete antimagnetic environ?"

I've never heard any mention about making any electrical device work on a planet (such as mars) in a complete magnetically dark location?

How is there gravity on mars if there is no magnetic field for a planet, and how can mass, the size of a planet not produce magnetism/gravity if its not made of iron-sh (the RED of the planet)

ELI5, please.

See my post in this thread about dimples/barnacles...

But have you seen this guys package: https://github.com/ProjectPhysX/FluidX3D

Yes, I've made that super easy. You can change the VRAM capacity of your hardware as one number in the setup script and it will automatically scale the simulation up or down. See the documentation for details.

Also see this GitHub Issue on the problem: https://github.com/ProjectPhysX/FluidX3D/issues/59

If you want to play with the software yourself, FluidX3D is on GitHub: https://github.com/ProjectPhysX/FluidX3D

This is my opinion about what is happening. Production CFD solvers are really complicated and take a lot of time and energy to write. Engineers learning to use a CFD solver to get a job done is really time consuming and there are all sorts of issue that come up like actually trusting the new solver. Both of these things have really held back GPUs in this area. There are really only two ways out of this, either you write a solver from scratch and get people to adopt it (double hard) or you take an existing solver and modify it to run on GPUs (still pretty hard). The first option is very hard but ultimately the way to go in my opinion. The second option results in very poorly optimized GPU code and honestly just gives a bad name to GPU computing in my opinion. Take OpenLB for example, https://www.openlb.net/show-cases/highly-resolved-nozzle-simulation-performed-using-multi-gpu-support/. Terrible terrible performance compared to what you could get if you wrote the solver from scratch on the GPU, for example, https://github.com/ProjectPhysX/FluidX3D.

https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx Modern C++ concepts incorporated in a threading library. Lots of useful techniques used in there and we are trying to keep our code base very tidy. Feel free to chime in our libera channel #ste||ar if you have any questions.

https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx Welcoming community + we have been part of GSoC for 4-5 years now so feel free to apply there when it opens ;)

You definitely do not want to learn Boost, trust me. The cudatoolkit is fine, HPX is great, so are Dask, and Ray. I do not recommend MPI unless those computers you have use InfiniBand.

I found this interesting library that might fit your goal.

I personally like the ideas in Parallelism v2 TS, which is available in for libstdc++ 11 onwards. The reference implementation is a library named Vc (afaik Vc is the most popular SIMD library for C++), and this has also been implemented in recent versions of HPX.

I am aware of DAGs of task based threading library like Taskflow and HPX however the benefit they have is not obvious to me, as the following sequential section depends on the parallel part being completed fully. If you want to suggest elaboration on the benefits of this approach would be welcome.

Github: https://github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx

We're working on something similar, but based on sender/receiver in HPX (a lightweight threading runtime) and DLA-Future (distributed linear algebra currently based on (HPX) futures; based on sender/receiver in the future). With senders-as-awaitables this would also get you coroutine support for asynchronous MPI calls for free. We don't have that yet, but it's planned. In the meantime libunifex should be able to fill in the gaps.