Michael Barton wrote: > > IMHO, r.cva is a good candidate to consider for the regular GRASS > distribution. According to Benjamin Ducke (who built on Mark Lake's > original code to bring this to GRASS 6), it could use some > optimization improvements because it is VERY slow at times.
yes, but IIRC the author has copyright problems from his university which wouldn't let him release it as GPL. Otherwise it would have replaced r.los a long time ago. IIRC2 as mentioned in the Google SOC project thread that even with the r.cva improvements the base r.los algorithm is badly inefficient, and could be implemented a lot better. Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
