[ENH] Improve marching cubes mesh extraction with masking support | GEN-12031

[Leguark]

Description

Improved the marching cubes implementation for mesh extraction with proper masking support. The changes include:

1. Added proper masking for lithological groups vs fault groups
2. Fixed scalar field value assignment to structural elements
3. Implemented helper functions to generate masking arrays and set scalar field values
4. Modified the mesh extraction process to correctly handle masks during marching cubes
5. Updated test resolution for better visualization

Relates to mesh extraction functionality

Checklist

• My code uses type hinting for function and method arguments and return values.
• I have created tests which cover my code.
• The test code either 1. demonstrates at least one valuable use case (e.g. integration tests)
  or 2. verifies that outputs are as expected for given inputs (e.g. unit tests).
• New tests pass locally with my changes.

[Leguark]

• [ENH] Refactor mesh extraction and add scalar field at interface to structural elements | | GEN-12031 #1019
• [ENH] Improve marching cubes mesh extraction with masking support | GEN-12031 #1006 👈 (View in Graphite)
• [FEATURE] Add mesh extraction module using marching cubes algorithm | GEN-12031 #1005
• [ENH/WIP] Adding first test to implement marching cubes #1000
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[javoha]

Hi,
not sure if this is now the right place, but: the current test for MC in main does not actually work properly. Here an image of the result (with slightly increased resolution).

I see two problems:

1. While surfaces have the right shape, they are shifted.
2. There is a surface missing, probably because there are two surfaces in that group.

I will take a look and see if I can find the problems. Does it make sense to do this in this pull request now or should I open a new one @Leguark?

EDIT: Problem was that the correct sclar values per element were not passed (or stored). I fixed it but put some ToDos because it should probably be done somewhere else.

[Leguark]

added it here or in another pr if it is completely independent on the marching cubes code

[javoha]

added it here or in another pr if it is completely independent on the marching cubes code

I already added a solution for creating the correct MC surfaces. Probably the solution is not in the right place for a final merge, but it does work.

I was not able to create the correct mask yet, though I added some ideas and suggestions.

[javoha]

Hi,

so I got a working solution now. But I basically did everything "manually" (getting the rigth scalar field values and scalar fields, creating new masks and going through the groups/elements in the right order). @Leguark maybe you can take a look and check where you can simplify and move things for clarity.

[Leguark]

Merge activity

• May 2, 5:28 AM EDT: A user started a stack merge that includes this pull request via Graphite.
• May 2, 5:28 AM EDT: @Leguark merged this pull request with Graphite.