Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'code'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • About This Forum and Announcements
    • How to Use This Forum
    • Forum Feedback
    • Announcements
  • TUFLOW Modelling
    • 1D/2D Linking
    • 1D Domains
    • 2D/2D Linking
    • 2D/2D Nesting
    • 2D Domains
    • Boundaries
    • Documentation & Tutorial Model
    • Dongles/Licensing/Installation
    • Ideas / Suggestions / New Features
    • Mass Balance/Mass Error
    • MATH Errors & Simulation Failure
    • Restart Files
    • Post-Processing
    • Software/Hardware Requirements
    • Text Files (.tcf, .tgc, .tbc, .ecf)
    • Utilities
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other Software
    • ISIS-TUFLOW
    • MapInfo/Vertical Mapper
    • miTools
    • Other GIS/CAD
    • SMS
    • XP-SWMM2D
    • UltraEdit/Excel
    • TUFLOW Apps

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. Hi, I've been tweaking a model over the last few months and I've just realised I have a discrepancy regarding the 2d_bc_code layer. I updated this layer to widen the model domain in a specific section of the model to improve our understanding of overland flow paths, however I have recently realised that the 2d_bc_code layer is referenced in both the .tgc and .tbc model files. I am now in the scenario of having the updated 2d_bc_code layer referenced in the .tgc file and the older superseded file referenced in the .tbc file. From the model output, Tuflow seems to be using the updated 2d_bc_code layer (so the command in the .tgc file), which I guess is why I never picked up on this oversight until now. But that raises a few questions: Is the above assumption (that the model seems to prioritise the command in the .tgc file) correct? Why are no errors raised when two different 2d_bc_code layers are referenced in the same model? Does the 'Read MI BC ==' command need to be stated in both .tgc and .tbc files and if so, why? The only variation I can find is in the .tgc file, the command is 'Read MI Code BC ==', however in the .tbc file the command is as above in the last bullet point. Is this a relic from a previous version? As above, the model output seems sensible in conjunction with the updated 2d_bc_code layer, so I am unsure of the purpose/authority of the command in the .tbc file. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
  2. I am running a simulation and getting ERROR 2083 - Unrecognisable SET command. This is the tgc file content: Grid Size (N,M) == 5694, 3267 Origin == 730014.523205, 7073489.415904 Orientation Angle == 265.073783 Cell Size == 10.000000 Read RowCol Zpts == mi\2d_zpts_TUFLOW grid.xf8 Set IWL == 0.000000 Set SRF == 0.000000 Set Mat == 1 Set Code == 0 Read MI Code BC == mi\2d_bc_BC.mif Read MI MAT == mi\2d_mat_materials.mif I have read through the manual and can't find any problem with this file. Please help. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...