Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DtPlotDischarge behaves differently in version 2.0 and 2.1 #23

Open
cozzini opened this issue Aug 7, 2017 · 4 comments
Open

DtPlotDischarge behaves differently in version 2.0 and 2.1 #23

cozzini opened this issue Aug 7, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@cozzini
Copy link
Member

cozzini commented Aug 7, 2017

if DtPlotDischarge is lower than timestep it is automatically set to Dt (each hours) in version 2.0.0 while in version 2.1 is simply ignored.
This means that discharge.txt file is just one line that containts headers on version 2.1.

@ssenoner
Copy link
Collaborator

ssenoner commented Jan 3, 2019

Hi @cozzini , DtPlotDischarge is compared to a value called minDt and not Dt:

if (par->Dtplot_discharge > 1.E-5 && par->Dtplot_discharge <= minDt)

there is no change in this behavior between 2.0 and 2.1, also minDt is initialized with the same value,
but the value of minDt is initialized but in 2.1 never changed.
On the other side minDt is initialized to a very high value:
double minDt = 1.E99;

again, also 2.0 uses the same value for initialization of minDt
What do you think about it?

@ssenoner
Copy link
Collaborator

ssenoner commented Jan 4, 2019

I looked at the next steps.
So the Point where Dtplot_discharge is changed in 2.0 was a function called set_time_step.
In 2.0 you had the chance to execute a Simulation more often and probably with different dt values, as far as I understood this has been removed in 2.1, but the correction of this single Dt values also was removed.

ssenoner added a commit to ssenoner/geotop that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2019
ssenoner added a commit to ssenoner/geotop that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2019
ssenoner added a commit to ssenoner/geotop that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2019
@ssenoner
Copy link
Collaborator

ssenoner commented Jan 6, 2019

I saw that in the 3D example snow_dstr_SENSITIVITY we faced this bug, when I created the discharge file in fact it was different than the one calculated by SE27XX, but I think this is already known that there are some differences, Right?

ssenoner added a commit to ssenoner/geotop that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2019
@ssenoner
Copy link
Collaborator

ssenoner commented Jan 6, 2019

In fact same can be done not only for discharge, but also for Basin and Point.....

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants