Dave,
Yes, there is matching issue when creating the 3D map. If the grid
is (y,x) and the map is (x,y), you will see the problem. But, the IDV does
have a solution for you. When selecting the topography field, you should
select
Formula > Define a grid diagnostic, and then enter
"GridUtil.swapLatLon(a)", then, enter the topography field which is
2D grid > Mass > Geopotential height @ ground, ...... after swapping, you
should get the corrected 3D map.
Yuan
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:36 PM, David P Dempsey <dempsey@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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 mailing list
> idvusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For list information, to unsubscribe, visit:
> http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
>
>
