We're experimenting with r.terraflow as an alternative to r.flow for faster computation of flow accumulation in a detailed erosion/deposition model (based on USPED equations) we've recently posted on the SVN addons site. It may give better results than r.flow in this context. But I agree that it has been temperamental (though currently working OK under FC6). Helena mentioned that a new and much improved version is in the works. So we might not want to relegate it to the scrap heap yet.
Michael On 7/27/07 5:18 AM, "Brad Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 22:29 +0100, Glynn Clements wrote: >> [Well, personally I would just remove r.terraflow, having been written >> without any consideration for GRASS' build system or coding >> conventions, or portability in general. But that's just me.] > > I agree with the sentiment, but I don't know how practical that is at > the moment. > > r.terraflow breaks often, has been a headache to maintain and the author > does not have the time/resources to keep it current. OTOH, it is a > useful module and is portable in the sense that there is a ArcGIS > version. > > Perhaps relegate it to the SVN addon repository since it does break so > many GRASS conventions? I wish we had some statistics on module > frequency to determine how inconvenient such a move would be. > Personally, I've only used r.terraflow on occasion, but that type of > analysis is not my forte. > __________________________________________ Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology Director of Graduate Studies School of Human Evolution & Social Change Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity Arizona State University phone: 480-965-6213 fax: 480-965-7671 www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
