Difference between revisions of "Modelling tool user interfaces"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | The tables below compare some main features of the user interfaces of the selected modelling tools that relate to their ease of use. These include approximate comparisons of typical model run times and the computing power needed to run them, as well as how easy it is to export and view various model outputs and test different parameter value options for sensitivity analyses and/or calibration. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | The combination of how long it takes to set up a model, how long it takes to run a model, how long it takes to access model outputs of interest, and how long it takes to test and refine the model all influence what can be achieved in the time that is available for a modelling projects. Some modelling tools may run very quickly, but take a relatively long time to set up and don't have an efficient way to change and test multiple parameter value options, making calibration a time consuming manual process. Other tools may take long to run, but can be set up to do a number of parameter testing runs and even scenario runs at once, allowing the modeller to attend to other work in the meantime (however they may have to do so on another computer if the model runs require a lot of computing power!). | |
| − | The | ||
| − | |||
== Interface comparison overview == | == Interface comparison overview == | ||
| Line 102: | Line 100: | ||
| style="background: #F5FCFF; vertical-align: center; text-align:center;" |'''yes''' | | style="background: #F5FCFF; vertical-align: center; text-align:center;" |'''yes''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | colspan="6" style="background: #FFFFFF;vertical-align: vertical-align: center;" |'''Accessing model output''' | + | | colspan="6" style="background: #FFFFFF;vertical-align: vertical-align: center;" |'''Accessing model output''' <big> </big> |
|- | |- | ||
| style="vertical-align: vertical-align: center;" |Output viewer tool for streamflow | | style="vertical-align: vertical-align: center;" |Output viewer tool for streamflow | ||
| Line 141: | Line 139: | ||
== Formats for input-output data == | == Formats for input-output data == | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 10:13, 1 December 2023
The tables below compare some main features of the user interfaces of the selected modelling tools that relate to their ease of use. These include approximate comparisons of typical model run times and the computing power needed to run them, as well as how easy it is to export and view various model outputs and test different parameter value options for sensitivity analyses and/or calibration.
The combination of how long it takes to set up a model, how long it takes to run a model, how long it takes to access model outputs of interest, and how long it takes to test and refine the model all influence what can be achieved in the time that is available for a modelling projects. Some modelling tools may run very quickly, but take a relatively long time to set up and don't have an efficient way to change and test multiple parameter value options, making calibration a time consuming manual process. Other tools may take long to run, but can be set up to do a number of parameter testing runs and even scenario runs at once, allowing the modeller to attend to other work in the meantime (however they may have to do so on another computer if the model runs require a lot of computing power!).
Interface comparison overview
| Interface characteristic | WRSM-Pitman | SPATSIM-Pitman | ACRU4 | SWAT2012 | MIKE-SHE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graphical user interface (vs code prompt) |
yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Catchment map display (visualise linkages) | no | yes | no | yes | yes |
| Model run times | |||||
| Estimated model run time for a 30 year run, ~300km^2 catchment (Note: will depend on model set-up complexity & computing power!) |
seconds to minutes | seconds to minutes | seconds to minutes | tens of minutes | hours |
| Computing resources needed | |||||
| Comparative rating of computing power needed to achieve workable run times. | light | light | light | medium | intensive (need good GPU) |
| Model set-up ease & efficiency | |||||
| Automated creation of model units & connections from map inputs (vs fully manual creation) |
no | no | no | yes | yes |
| Input parameter values and change values for batches of models units (e.g., all HRUs of a cover type) |
(limited) | yes | no | yes | yes |
| In-built database of suggested parameter values (e.g., for common vegetation types, soil types, etc.) |
no | no | yes | yes | no |
| User can build own parameter databases for use across multiple models | no | (limited) | no | yes | yes |
| Model set-up transparency (i.e., is it very obvious what the model is doing/assuming?) | |||||
| Interface makes the user interact with every component & parameter entry option during model set-up (vs having default parameter values pre-entered & not forcing user to view them) |
yes | yes | yes | no | yes |
| Tool checks connection errors | (limited) | yes | (limited) | yes | yes |
| Batch runs & calibration tools | |||||
| Facility for batch runs, parameter sensitivity analyses, uncertainty analyses & auto-calibration | no | yes | no | yes | yes |
| Accessing model output | |||||
| Output viewer tool for streamflow | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Output viewer tool for water balance fluxes and stores | (limited) | yes | no | (limited) | yes |
| All water balance components that are calculated by the model can be exported | no | no | yes | yes | yes |
| Batch export of water balance fluxes for model's basic spatial units | no | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Automated extraction of water balance fluxes for different spatial scales (e.g., by cover class area, by subcatchment, full catchment) |
no | no | no | (limited) | yes |