WMS:Differences From Earlier Versions (Version 6.0 and earlier): Difference between revisions

From XMS Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
The new method differs from the previous method in several aspects. The locations of water levels and their section criteria for interpolation are more flexible than the previous method. Ability to incorporate user defined flood barriers as coverage provides an excellent opportunity to overcome the limitations inherent in digital terrain models. It also becomes useful in evaluating “what if” or post project scenarios. The new method provides several options to present flood depth data that are not available in the older method. In addition to conceptual and computational differences between two methods, you will also notice following changes while using the new method:
The new method differs from the previous method in several aspects. The locations of water levels and their section criteria for interpolation are more flexible than the previous method. Ability to incorporate user defined flood barriers as coverage provides an excellent opportunity to overcome the limitations inherent in digital terrain models. It also becomes useful in evaluating “what if” or post project scenarios. The new method provides several options to present flood depth data that are not available in the older method. In addition to conceptual and computational differences between two methods, you will also notice following changes while using the new method:


*[[WMS:Read Stage File|Water levels are read as a scatter data set]] as opposed to flood stages at TIN vertices.
*[[WMS:Read Stage File|Water levels are read as a scatter dataset]] as opposed to flood stages at TIN vertices.


*The method does not require “streams” in the TIN.
*The method does not require “streams” in the TIN.

Revision as of 18:59, 4 March 2013

The new method differs from the previous method in several aspects. The locations of water levels and their section criteria for interpolation are more flexible than the previous method. Ability to incorporate user defined flood barriers as coverage provides an excellent opportunity to overcome the limitations inherent in digital terrain models. It also becomes useful in evaluating “what if” or post project scenarios. The new method provides several options to present flood depth data that are not available in the older method. In addition to conceptual and computational differences between two methods, you will also notice following changes while using the new method:

  • The method does not require “streams” in the TIN.
  • Multiple events or water level time series can be read as oppose to a single event. User can choose an event while delineating floodplain.
  • Computed flood depths are stored as TIN data set and saved along with the TIN.
  • Multiple flood depth data sets can be created in a TIN from multiple events.
  • Finally flood extent, classified flood depth, and flood impact coverages can be exported as shapefiles for reporting or other flood management purposes.


Related Topics