dsheehy

Members
  • Content count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dsheehy

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. Hi Mitch, Apologies for the delay in replying, I've only just seen your response. I'll send an email shortly. ds.
  2. Recently I've bumped into an issue with Crayfish being unable to load large XMDF result files. When result files exceed some unknown threshold of either number of cells or file size, the Crayfish plugin is unable to load the file. I've spoken to the good people at Lutra Consulting who developed the plugin and while they are aware of the issue, the plugin has taken on a life of its own and they can't continue to maintain and trouble-shoot it for everyone. This got me wondering: 1. Has anyone else come across this issue? If so, what have you found out about the limits and possible solutions / work-arounds? 2. Would there be interest from other users in pulling together a consortium to co-fund support and development of Crayfish into the future? Alternatively, a consortium could be assembled to fund the resolution of this specific issue only. 3. Are there plans for TUFLOW to expand their current QGIS plugin to offer more of the functionality of Crayfish? If not, would there be interest in leading and supporting a consortium? ds.
  3. Thanks Teegan. That explains a lot!
  4. I've set up downstream boundaries in GPU models a number of times now using a 2d_bc HT boundary where a fixed water level below ground level is used. According to the documentation, this causes the model to apply 'normal flow' at this point, effectively behaving as an automatic HQ boundary. However, the results usually look like water is simply pouring out of the boundary, with water level and depth decreasing as they approach the boundary. This does not look like normal flow as I would have expected it and can have effects quite some distance upstream. The attached image illustrates the point. Is someone able to expand on how exactly this boundary works?