Difference between revisions of "Documentation & support across tools"

From Hydromodel SA Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
On this page we provide a table that compares the usability of these models (in terms of ease of use of the interface, the documentation and the support) based on user ratings. Finally, we include a link that you can go to if you have a burning hydrological modelling question, but no way to answer it.
+
 
  
 
== User ratings across tools ==
 
== User ratings across tools ==
Line 7: Line 7:
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
|+<span id = "Table XX Anchor"> <big>USER RATINGS OF MODELLING TOOLS</big></span>
 
|+<span id = "Table XX Anchor"> <big>USER RATINGS OF MODELLING TOOLS</big></span>
! Modelling tool !! |Interface !! |Documentation !! |Support !! |Sample Size !!
+
! Modelling tool !! |Interface !! |Documentation !! |Support !! |Sample Size  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style='background: #F5FFF5' | ACRU
 
|style='background: #F5FFF5' | ACRU
Line 14: Line 14:
 
|style='background: #F5FFF5' |3.9
 
|style='background: #F5FFF5' |3.9
 
|style='background: #F5FFF5' |19
 
|style='background: #F5FFF5' |19
|style='background: #F5FFF5' |
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style='background: #FFF5FA' | WRSM-Pitman
 
|style='background: #FFF5FA' | WRSM-Pitman
Line 21: Line 20:
 
|style='background: #FFF5FA' |3.5
 
|style='background: #FFF5FA' |3.5
 
|style='background: #FFF5FA' |14
 
|style='background: #FFF5FA' |14
|style='background: #FFF5FA' |
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style='background: #FFF7F5' | SPATSIM-Pitman
 
|style='background: #FFF7F5' | SPATSIM-Pitman
Line 28: Line 26:
 
|style='background: #FFF7F5' |3.5
 
|style='background: #FFF7F5' |3.5
 
|style='background: #FFF7F5' |11
 
|style='background: #FFF7F5' |11
|style='background: #FFF7F5' |
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style='background: #FFFFF5' | SWAT
 
|style='background: #FFFFF5' | SWAT
Line 35: Line 32:
 
|style='background: #FFFFF5' |3.8
 
|style='background: #FFFFF5' |3.8
 
|style='background: #FFFFF5' |9
 
|style='background: #FFFFF5' |9
|style='background: #FFFFF5' |
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|style='background: #F5FCFF' | MIKE-SHE
 
|style='background: #F5FCFF' | MIKE-SHE
Line 42: Line 38:
 
|style='background: #F5FCFF' |2.3
 
|style='background: #F5FCFF' |2.3
 
|style='background: #F5FCFF' |7
 
|style='background: #F5FCFF' |7
|style='background: #F5FCFF' |
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|WEAP
 
|WEAP
Line 49: Line 44:
 
|4.0
 
|4.0
 
|7
 
|7
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|SCS-SA
 
|SCS-SA
Line 56: Line 50:
 
|3.4
 
|3.4
 
|4
 
|4
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|WRYM
 
|WRYM
Line 63: Line 56:
 
|4.0
 
|4.0
 
|3
 
|3
|
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
|HYDRUS
 
|HYDRUS
Line 70: Line 62:
 
|2.5
 
|2.5
 
|2
 
|2
|
 
 
|}
 
|}
 
Are you a South African hydrological modeler? Would you like to have your say? Feel free to participate in our survey [https://forms.gle/PtS2EffK413r2hjRA here]. We will update this page from time to time to reflect new data.
 

Latest revision as of 08:24, 4 December 2023


User ratings across tools

In 2021, we surveyed the South African hydrological modelling community to ask them about their modelling background and level, which tools they used, and what their perceptions about these tools were. Specifically we asked them to rate the ease-of-use of the user interface, the ease-of-use of the documentation as well as the support of each modelling tool on a scale of 1-5, 1 being poor, 3 being satisfactory, and 5 being excellent. On 31 May 2021 we had 45 responses, and we summarised results here for any modelling tools that were reviewed by more than two people (i.e. sample size greater than 2). If you are choosing a modelling tool for your project, perhaps this table, as well as those on capabilities and specific use cases, would help you make a decision on which to select.

USER RATINGS OF MODELLING TOOLS
Modelling tool Interface Documentation Support Sample Size
ACRU 3.4 3.6 3.9 19
WRSM-Pitman 3.6 3.5 3.5 14
SPATSIM-Pitman 3.3 3.3 3.5 11
SWAT 3.6 3.9 3.8 9
MIKE-SHE 3.0 2.1 2.3 7
WEAP 3.4 3.9 4.0 7
SCS-SA 3.5 3.7 3.4 4
WRYM 3.7 4.0 4.0 3
HYDRUS 1.5 2.5 2.5 2