Hei, Before investing time in getting r.terraflow to work on larger regions I actually tried r.fill.dir.
The problem is that the results are significantly different and those of r.terraflow and r.hydrodem (where no breaching is performed) are more suitable for my needs. Here, r.terraflow fills most, r.fill.dir least and r.hydrodem inbetween. Here a little comparison based on NC data: g.extension extension=r.hydrodem operation=add g.region -p raster=elevation r.fill.dir --overwrite --verbose input=elevation output=elevation_fill_dir_depressionless direction=elevation_fill_dir_direction areas=elevation_fill_dir_pas r.hydrodem -a --overwrite input=elevation memory=5000 output=elevation_hydrodem_depressionless r.terraflow --overwrite --verbose elevation=elevation filled=elevation_terraflow_depressionless memory=5000 for m in terraflow fill_dir hydrodem do r.mapcalc --o expression="${m}_effect=if((elevation_${m}_depressionless-elevation)>0,elevation_${m}_depressionless-elevation,null())" done r.univar map="terraflow_effect" total null and non-null cells: 2025000 total null cells: 1901290 Of the non-null cells: ---------------------- n: 123710 minimum: 7.62939e-06 maximum: 12.5168 range: 12.5168 mean: 1.49711 mean of absolute values: 1.49711 standard deviation: 1.97871 variance: 3.91528 variation coefficient: 132.169 % sum: 185206.976940155 r.univar map="fill_dir_effect" total null and non-null cells: 2025000 total null cells: 1964852 Of the non-null cells: ---------------------- n: 60148 minimum: 7.62939e-06 maximum: 10.9003 range: 10.9003 mean: 0.499953 mean of absolute values: 0.499953 standard deviation: 0.939429 variance: 0.882526 variation coefficient: 187.903 % sum: 30071.1971092224 r.univar map="hydrodem_effect" total null and non-null cells: 2025000 total null cells: 1020396 Of the non-null cells: ---------------------- n: 1004604 minimum: 3.8147e-06 maximum: 4.74686 range: 4.74685 mean: 0.00587574 mean of absolute values: 0.00587574 standard deviation: 0.08715 variance: 0.00759513 variation coefficient: 1483.22 % sum: 5902.79515457153 Cheers Stefan ________________________________ Fra: Markus Metz <markus.metz.gisw...@gmail.com> Sendt: fredag 14. juni 2019 14.25 Til: Stefan Blumentrath Kopi: grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org Emne: Re: [GRASS-dev] r.terraflow vs. r.hydrodem On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:23 PM Stefan Blumentrath <stefan.blumentr...@nina.no<mailto:stefan.blumentr...@nina.no>> wrote: > > Hi, > > While trying to make r.terraflow work with larger regions, I was wondering if > it would be doable to add a flag to r.hydrodem that forces the module to > perform only sink filling and no breaching / carving? > > Sink filling is the function I need from r.terraflow but if it would be an > option to add this function to r.hydrodem, that would be fine as well of > course... what about r.fill.dir? It should work as is with larger regions. Markus M
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev