Modelling tool user interfaces
PAGE IN PROGRESS - MORE COMING SOON!
The table below gives a comparison of the user interface for each of the modelling tools.
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 |
Formats for input-output data
Computing resources
Run times
Run times for models built with a given tool can vary considerably with the size and complexity of the set-up, the number of timesteps in the run, and the computer being used. This makes is difficult to generalise, however, due to their relative simplicity WRSM, SPATSIM, and ACRU4 models in these exercises generally ran in a matter of a few minutes for a 30 year run, while the ArcSWAT and MIKE-SHE models could range from 15 minutes to several hours to complete this.
The run times have import particularly for parameter adjustment testing, limiting how much can be done in the time available for a project. However, the tools that have long run times, as well as SPATSIM, have made the parameter adjustment process quick and allow batch run facilities. Once set-up time-consuming testing runs can be ongoing without manual intervention needed from the modeller, freeing their time for other work. Although WRSM and ACRU4 run quickly, the process of making parameter adjustments in the model set-up to be tested takes a long time and a lot of manual effort as described above.