Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#2500 closed task (fixed)
r.surf.idw vs. r.surf.idw2
Reported by: | martinl | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | 7.0.0 |
Component: | Default | Version: | svn-trunk |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
CPU: | Unspecified | Platform: | Unspecified |
Description
Do we need the both modules in G7?
- could they be merged?
- or one of them moved to addons
Are there other candidates which could be moved to addons?
Change History (4)
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 10 years ago
Replying to martinl:
Do we need the both modules in G7?
- could they be merged?
- or one of them moved to addons
Even if they could be merged, it would require some work and time. So based on the r.surf.idw manual page:
r.surf.idw will generally outperform r.surf.idw2 except when the input data layer contains few non-zero data, i.e. when the cost of the search exceeds the cost of the additional distance calculations performed by r.surf.idw2. The relative performance of these utilities will depend on the comparative speed of boolean, integer and floating point operations on a particular platform.
and r.surf.idw2 manual page:
Another surface generation program, named r.surf.idw, should be used with latitude/longitude data bases
I would move r.surf.idw2 to addons. But I don't think I was trying any of them.
follow-up: 4 comment:3 by , 10 years ago
Replying to annakrat:
I would move r.surf.idw2 to addons. But I don't think I was trying any of them.
I would agree with you. Any objections?
comment:4 by , 10 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
Any comments? Thanks.