# Input requirements of VTK-m contour versus regular contour filter

**URL:** https://discourse.paraview.org/t/input-requirements-of-vtk-m-contour-versus-regular-contour-filter/12109
**Category:** ParaView Support
**Created:** [May 16, 2023, 10:21am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/input-requirements-of-vtk-m-contour-versus-regular-contour-filter/12109 "2023-05-16T10:21:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![paulmelis](https://discourse.paraview.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/4bbf92/32.png) [@paulmelis](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/paulmelis)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2023, 10:21am UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/input-requirements-of-vtk-m-contour-versus-regular-contour-filter/12109/1 "2023-05-16T10:21:54Z")

</div>

I have a uniform rectilinear grid of 862x759x1526 and try to contour a point data array “density” of 1-component float32s. With paraview 5.11.1 (official binaries) and the `VTKmFilters` plugin loaded: applying the VTK-m contour filter reports `Input dataset/parameters not supported by vtkmContour. Falling back to the default VTK implementation.`.

This is a bit surprising given that the dataset isn’t very exotic. Is the VTK-m contour filter more limited in the type of inputs it can handle? And, if so, what’s the limitation in this specific case?

Detailed dataset properties:

![image](https://discourse.paraview.org/uploads/default/original/2X/c/c39e85336670d132b8d68e9c0e0ece303a19829a.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/user_avatar/discourse.paraview.org/cory.quammen/32/11193_2.png) [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2023, 2:09pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/input-requirements-of-vtk-m-contour-versus-regular-contour-filter/12109/2 "2023-05-16T14:09:02Z")

</div>

@sujin was this a limitation that will be addressed in ParaView 5.12?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Kenneth\_Moreland](https://discourse.paraview.org/user_avatar/discourse.paraview.org/kenneth_moreland/32/15033_2.png) [@Kenneth\_Moreland](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/Kenneth_Moreland)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2023, 2:27pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/input-requirements-of-vtk-m-contour-versus-regular-contour-filter/12109/3 "2023-05-16T14:27:40Z")

</div>

Yes, this should be fixed in ParaView 5.12. The VTK-m filter was disabled in 5.11 because a corner case was identified that caused the VTK-m filter to possibly fail with uniform grids. This has been fixed, and this case is re-enabled in 5.12.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/user_avatar/discourse.paraview.org/cory.quammen/32/11193_2.png) [@cory.quammen](https://discourse.paraview.org/u/cory.quammen)
#### Post date: [May 16, 2023, 2:48pm UTC](https://discourse.paraview.org/t/input-requirements-of-vtk-m-contour-versus-regular-contour-filter/12109/4 "2023-05-16T14:48:35Z")

</div>

Thanks, Ken!