NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
On Oct 4, 2014, at 4:34 AM, Murray Brown <m.brown.nsb@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:m.brown.nsb@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: I got the impression during all my tests that there may be a complication due to the relative spatial extents of the two objects, the map and the topo. Do you or the IDV folks know if there is some limitation/restriction on the success of this formula, due to spatial relationship? And could spatial subsetting (although I did not use it) play a role? Murray, That’s a good question, and though I don’t know the answer, I haven’t had any trouble with at least some model output files whether I accepted all the region defaults, specified a custom region using an elastic box, or selected “Match Display Region”. The exception seems to be when I try to use GFS model analyses. I just tried loading a GFS analysis (a local file acquiring using our RAMADDA server: see Catalogs: http://virga.sfsu.edu:8080/repository/thredds > 14100412_gfs2_F00.grb, for example) and plotting hi-res state boundaries. If I accept the region defaults for both the map data and the topography (which is geopotential height of ground and water surfaces) and plot hi-res state boundaries, then I get a 3D map for the eastern part of the US, but it’s cut off west of there and the topography doesn’t make sense for the eastern U.S. (or anyplace else that I know). Moreover, I’m unable to improve on that result using GFS data from another model run or by selecting custom regions or by selecting “Match Display Region". In fact, when I specify a custom region or select “Match Display Region”, I get no map plot at all and the map plot color table is labeled “missing gpm”. In contrast, when I tried a 40 km NAM forecast, an 80 km NAM forecast, a RUC forecast, and a 10 km WRF model forecast, all using the same hi-res state map data, all plotted just fine, regardless of whether I accepted the default regions or specified “Match Display Region”. Seems like the IDV is having a problem reading the GFS model files correctly in this context. (But even with the GFS data, as my screen shot yesterday showed, I get separate prompts for the map data and the topography, and both offer correct choices to choose from, which differed from what you had reported seeing.) — Dave *************************************************************** * Dr. Dave Dempsey, Chair | ^ ___ \|/ * * Dept. of Earth & Climate Sciences | ) ^ /||_||\ —-0—- * * San Francisco State University | ) ) / ||_|| \ /|\ * * 1600 Holloway Ave. | ) ) / ||_|| \ * * San Francisco, CA 94132 | ) ) / ||_|| \ ^ * * | ) ) ) ||_|| \ * * Phone: (415) 338-7716 | ) ) )~~||~||~~~~~\~~ * * FAX: (415) 338-7705 | ) ) ) ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * * Email: dempsey@xxxxxxxx<mailto:dempsey@xxxxxxxx> | ) ) ) ) ) ~ ~ ~ ~ * ***************************************************************
idvusers archives: