Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

mjshallcross

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mjshallcross

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

921 profile views
  1. Dear GamesMaster, The tuflow_to_gis util description says it can output binary grid types, ie .flt files. But I can't get this to work (I've assumed the flag is -flt but also tried -f, -fl and -float). Can you advise on whether this feature is functioning in the 2020 build of tuflow_to_gis and if so, how to enact it? Cheers!
  2. Is there any documentation on the n/m offset that can be applied to SX boundaries? Table 7-5 has the following entries: Flag f : SX: n offset for determining cell invert levels for distributing flows. Flag D : SX: m offset for determining cell invert levels for distributing flows. I can't see any other information on this in the manual or on the forum. What is it intended for and how does it work? Thanks!
  3. Hi Phil, That's a great improvement as it avoids the multiple TMF reads and makes the selection explicit when you read the TCF (as a human person that is...) I did look at the TLF previously but it was looking at the uvpt as well that lead to my discovery that the code roughness was not being replaced with later values. I think the lesson is to avoid re-specifying material codes so everything is out in the open! A great way to be. The If/Else If/Else refinement is a neat solution. Thanks! Matty
  4. G'day all, I have used multiple "Read Materials File" calls in a model I'm working on, with scenarios for roughness increased and decreased by 20% (sensitivity tests). From looking at the uvpt check output my understanding is that, if a material code is used more than once, the first Manning's n value is used, not the last. Can you confirm this understanding is correct? If so it might be worth adding a comment to future releases of the manual. Based on other commands that can be used multiple times I expected codes roughness values to be overwritten by later calls to "Read Materials File". Below is an extract from my TCF for reference. This extract has the desired effect but I first expected the last line to need to be at the top: If Scenario == Sens(2A_MnInc20pcent) Read Materials File == ..\model\materials.tmf | 1.2 Else If Scenario == Sens(2B_MnDec20pcent) Read Materials File == ..\model\materials.tmf | 0.8 End If ! Baseline roughness, this will not be applied if Sens(2A_MnInc20pcent) or Sens(2B_MnDec20pcent) applied first. Read Materials File == ..\model\materials.tmf Having checked the uvpt check output, if I run with scenario Sens(2A_MnInc20pcent) specified I have roughness increased by 20%; with Sens(2A_MnInc20pcent) I have decreased roughness 20%, with neither I have my baseline roughness. Thanks for reading, Matty
  5. Hello all, I can't get the -fe flag to work in the latest release of asc_to_asc. I get ERROR - No operational flag specified. My line is simply: asc_to_asc -fe result_dmax.asc (Well it's not actually called "result"...) Rolling back to 2014-02-AA it works as expected. Maybe a bug in the latest release? Thank you for your time. Matthew
  6. Using the -out flag with res_to_res to specify different names for each max result will prevent the first getting written over. Currently as the default output filename for both of these calculations is the same the second result will overwrite the first. I think your 3 double quotation marks are causing issues with the TUFLOW_to_GIS. You shouldn't need any for those file names so try with none. There should always be an even number of quotes - I suspect you meant to have one at the start too..? Hope this helps. Matthew
  7. Hello all, Has the -out flag functionally been removed or changed in TUFLOW_to_GIS 2013_09_AA? I can't get it to work as it did in the previous build. It appears to be ignored and the default output file name used. Also I noticed the download page says 2013_07_AA for the latest TUFLOW_to_GIS release, but the executable from that link (when run) says 2013_09_AA, so it may actually be build 2014_07_AA..? Thank you for your time, Matthew
×
×
  • Create New...