Hi @subravvr and other co-authors,
Firstly, I wanted to commend you and the team on creating a software that allows for visualization of lack-of-fusion porosity in LPBF due to inadequate melt pool overlap. This will be very useful in the AM community and reduce the need for running many experiments. As someone who is not too familiar with software/simulation and works more on experimental side of AM, I have some suggestions to the documentation to make this more user-friendly and hopefully increase the usage of this tool in the AM community.
- I believe the 2 outputs from both the CL and API methods should be a .vti file and a .csv file. When I used the software using both methods using the example files provided, it only generated a .vti file but no .csv file. Perhaps I am missing something, could the authors provide some guidance here?
- The input.yaml file provided in the examples folder is slightly different from the one shown in the README, it would reduce some confusion if they were the same file, referencing the same sample data files as well.
- One of the performance claims of the software was that their methodology for computation decreases the time needed for processing, it would be great if there was an output of processing time to validate this claim.
- In terms of documentation, it would be ideal if there were some examples (figures) for what users should expect from the software as the output, to validate that the software performs as the author expect. Running the software myself, I opened the .vti file using the pyvista library in python and got the following result.
Adding something in the documentation to show what to expect would be useful. Image of the result is attached.
- Also a complex example with more than 3 vectors in the scan paths to show the capabilities of this software tool would be great. Something that is more part scale rather than scan track scale shows a more “real-world” application.
- I can see that the authors have provided the tests scripts used to verify the functionality of the software but there are some cases that have been tagged “TODO” and should be completed prior to publication to validate the software.
- There are no guidelines provided for third parties who might be interested in contributing to the software, report issues or problems and seek support for the software.
- The manuscript is well written and outlines the improvements upon previous software developed for this purpose as well. There are just some minor changes such as the inconsistencies between the usage of “state-of-the-art” and “state of the art” on lines 32, 37 and 39, please make sure to keep this consistent. In Line 39 this sentence: “ The novel parallelized algorithm we present results multiple order-of-magnitude 40 efficiency gain over the previous state-of-the-art serially timestepped approach” does not make grammatical sense. Please revisit for improved flow.
Please let me know if any clarification is required! Looking forward to your responses.
Hi @subravvr and other co-authors,
Firstly, I wanted to commend you and the team on creating a software that allows for visualization of lack-of-fusion porosity in LPBF due to inadequate melt pool overlap. This will be very useful in the AM community and reduce the need for running many experiments. As someone who is not too familiar with software/simulation and works more on experimental side of AM, I have some suggestions to the documentation to make this more user-friendly and hopefully increase the usage of this tool in the AM community.
Adding something in the documentation to show what to expect would be useful. Image of the result is attached.
Please let me know if any clarification is required! Looking forward to your responses.