Mark Bentley

Sometimes it is necessary to assign longer names to points in GMS coverages. If you export the coverage out of GMS as a shapefile GMS crops the longer names. It would be nice if GMS would allow longer names to be exported to shapefiles.

Will GMS support non-linear interpolation between boundary condition nodes? For example, would it be possible to use a non-linear interpolation scheme between the nodes of a specified head boundary condition?

Hi Wlkaufman, We have been trying to replicate this issue on one of our computers so that it can be submitted to the SMS development team, but have been unable to do so. If you will provide us with your files and additional detailed instructions as to the steps you take to produce the error I believe we would have more success. I am including instructions for uploading your files to our FTP site below: FTP uploading instructions 1. Create a new folder with a unique name on your computer and copy all of your project files into it. (please zip up the folder) 2. Open windows explorer (My Computer). 3. Enter "ftp://pubftp.aquaveo.com/incoming/" in the address bar. 4. (If the "Log On As" dialog box appears) check the box labeled "Log on anonymously" and click "Log On". 5. Copy the folder with your project files in it into the "incoming" folder. 6. Send an e-mail to support@aquaveo.com telling us the name of the folder you uploaded and exact steps taken to produce the problem. *Please help us stay organized by putting all of your files in a single folder before you upload them. After you upload the files, you will not be able to edit them.

This error indicates that CMS-Flow has come across a value that is "Not a Number" (NaN). Some past users have overcome this error by reducing the time step.

Currently GMS only supports dates in the mm/dd/yyyy format in transient modeling. Would it be possible to create an option that would allow dates to be entered in the dd/mm/yyyy format as well?

Boreholes are intended to document drilling logs where the stratigraphy has been tested. If you would like to keep showing what the stratigraphy is like below the depth of a borehole, then you would have to make assumptions about what is below the hole and put these assumptions in with the borehole data. The simplest method of making sure your boreholes line up with the surface of the ground is the horizons method. In the horizons method, rather than coupling the borehole data with the ground you use the borehole data to define the location of the ground. You can read about the Horizons method on our wiki by clicking here. The bug you describe with boreholes continuing to display after being deleted is a known issue that should be resolved soon.

Is there a way to generate a "Mass versus Time" plot for a polygon in an MT3D model in GMS? This would be a useful way of determining how concentrations change for an entire plume over time. Currently you can do this for regions where there are sources and sinks but not all of the plumes coincide with sources and sinks. Would it be possible to make a source and sink option that is inert (meaning it wouldn't affect the computational results of the model) that could be used as a marker for a plume?

When I color scatter points according to a user-defined color pallet, I can’t get GMS to let me use my own scale. GMS limits me to either a percentage scale or to a scale of -5 to 5 when I try to use values. I have environmental concentration data that varies over 8 orders of magnitude, so I’d like to be able to define a log scale beginning at a very small value up to a very large value, but I can’t. The percentage scale limits me to a scale of 0.0001 to 1.0. Could an option to color scatter points via a log scale be included in GMS?

Will GSFLOWever be supported in GMS?

If your FEMWATER model was created using a conceptual model, you should be able to double click on the well and change it's attributes using the attribute table. After doing this you will also need to map the changes over to your FEMWATER model

It doubt doing stochastic modeling will require you to replace your laptop if you were already able to run GMS on it. While it will require more time to do obtain a full stochastic solution it is still running the same basic programs as before just switching the variables up a little bit each time. My guess is that much more memory is expended running MODFLOW in GMS than is required to keep switching the variables. There is a summary of what the stochastic model is capable of on our wiki. You can view the summary by clicking here. There are several differences between GMS 7.1 and GMS 8.0. The best way of getting an idea about what those differences are is once again to visit our wiki. You can see how GMS 8.0 compares to GMS 7.1 by clicking here

How would you go about displaying the head contours from a MODFLOW simulation in 3D?

In the Stress Periods dialogue box you have the option of checking a "Steady State" box for each stress period. What impact does this option have on the model?

In order to use your calibrated parameters in a forward run of MODFLOW you will need to import them. You can do this by going to the "MODFLOW" menu | Parameters. At this point you can click on the "Import Optimal Values" button and open the **.par file.

Unfortunately, there is not an automated method to export well transient pumping data for all wells in the format you'd like it to be in. However you can export out the pumping data for each well (if you have them assigned as feature points in the map module) by following the steps below. 1. Double click on a feature point representing a well with transient pumping data 2. Select the button in the "Flow rate" column with the three dots to bring up the XY Series Editor 3. Select the "Export..." button 4. Specify the file name and location and then select "Save" I realize that with many wells this will be a tedious process. I am therefore submitting this as a feature request to the GMS developers. I apologize for the inconvenience.