Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

several misc. sms questions


dfhill
 Share

Recommended Posts

If I load in a coastline file, with nodes ordered from S to N (imagine this is the west coast), then this is the correct 'direction' for an adcirc simulation (land on the right).

Why, then, when I 'define domain' does the open ocean boundary (semi-circle, for example) end up on the RIGHT (i.e., on land)?

I can fix this by temporarily 'reversing' the direction of the land arc. BUT, now, the land arc is going the wrong way, so if you generate a mesh and save a fort.14, it will not work. Instead, you have to re-reverse the direction of the land arc prior to mesh generation.

I find these extra steps tedious.

Also, is there a simple way to 'see' the direction of an arc, prior to generating a mesh (at which time arrows appear indicating arc direction)? While SMS lets you reverse arc direction, it is frustrating that one can not see the arc direction.

Finally, WHEN will an 'undo' feature be built into SMS? Any timeline anticipated?

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arc direction is used in SMS to determine which side of the arc that is land and the side that is water. It uses a standard that the land is on the left if you are facing the direction of the arc. This convention exists because of historical uses for a variety of models. It could be reviewed to maintain complete consistency with ADCIRC. However, once the mesh (or grid) is constructed, SMS orients the nodestring for ADCIRC based on the domain to satisfy the ADCIRC ordering. The user does not need to worry about the order in this sense.

It has been requested that SMS show (or at least allow the user to show) the direction of the arc. This is currently only a feature for some arcs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the question about 'undo', we do not have a timeline for this feature. We have done some investigation and retrofitting the code to support undo would be a very very large task. While it is one of the features we would most like to implement, the huge cost has made it impossible for our limited resources. We have felt to date that there have been other features that have a better benefit/cost ratio. Certainly the benefits would be considerable but the costs are even more so. We will continue to investigate potential solutions and hope that it is something we can provide in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...