Revision as of 15:54, 29 January 2015

Summary list of Survey Executive Summaries:

For the global CCP survey:

• Three packages are the most-used packages by 26% of respondents. Conversely, another 31 packages are used by one or two users and account for a further 26% of respondents.
• Producing publication quality plots is the most-used technique.
• However, the features making these packages the favourites are:

1. Software that is written specifically for their domain of interest.
2. Large datasets are handled efficiently.
3. Scripting or other ability to extend the tool is required.

• Users second most favoured packages are general purpose visualisation tools.
• Users were given five options for selecting their most required development. None emerged as being more needed than the others.
• Conversely, large amounts of memory was clearly the most important requirement for high performance visualisation.
• The main future challenges are suggested to be

1. The ability to handle large amounts of data
2. The ability to operate in a distributed environment.

For the CCPi survey:

For the CFD survey:

The survey of tools and techniques used within project gave the following main conclusions:

1. Visualisation is most important in analysis; but also useful in problem definition, and mesh generation.
2. ParaView is high on the list of preferred visualisation tools. But gnuplot, Matlab, xmgrace, and Pgplot are also required.

There are strong preferences to version number as features change. This may unify in the future.

Future Roadmap

• Two sub-surveys requested: We surveyed both the old non-funded CCPs which included

1. CCP1 The electronic structure of molecules (defunct link)
2. CCP3 Computational studies of surfaces (defunct link)
3. CCP6 Molecular quantum dynamics
4. CCP13 Software for fibre and polymer diffraction
5. CCP14 Powder diffraction

and surveyed the national facilities lists:

1. STFC: Diamond Light Source
2. STFC: ISIS - Neutron Spallation Source
3. STFC: CLF - Central Lasers Facility

These linked gathered 37 extra responses that were merged together with the total (6 from non-funded CCPs and 31 from the user communities).We have been asked to look specifically at the CLF and the ISIS user communities separately in a short extra report. From informal comments we believe users from non-funded CCPs have transferred to a funded CCP, a facilities user list, or moved on.

• Rerunning the global survey: A future 2015 survey is being planned for Summer 2015, which will then track temporal changes between the CCPs and also indicate the changing nature from the new CCPs just recently funded.

Optional appendices TO DO