Skip to content

A. Weisgerber

My feedback

19 results found

  1. 8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  2. 19 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  3. 11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  4. 25 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  5. 12 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  6. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  7. 9 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  8. 28 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  9. 8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  10. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  11. 11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  12. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    A. Weisgerber commented  · 

    This could be achieved by implementing the feature request "User defined results fields"
    The user could define a new field TS=SF1+SF2

  13. 6 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  14. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    A. Weisgerber commented  · 

    This functionnality would be useful for a WQ model containing different processes in different part of the network, for example river + estuary, where the upstream and downstream reaches behave quite differently.
    One suggestion would be to create WQ zones, with each zone WQ settings overridding the default generic model-wide WQ settings.

    Note: this is an issue for sediments as well, where sediment parameter for the upstream reaches might not be the same as those for lower/flatter/estuary reaches.

  15. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    RECEIVED  ·  pascal.lang responded

    Thanks for this idea, while it can already be done for themes, extending this out for results generation sounds good. The assumption is that a retrospectively applied SQL to populate User Text 1 with the desired result isn’t sufficient for this requirement?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    A. Weisgerber commented  · 

    Ideally the user-defined variables can be displayed in graphs and results tables, as well as being exportable, and usable for alerts in ICMLive. Pretty much like a build-in variable.

    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  16. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    A. Weisgerber commented  · 

    This could be achieved with the proposal "Allow pollutographs to apply on subcatchments " for 1D or 1D-2D models.
    For direct 2D rainfall however, it would require a new 2D surface washoff model.

  17. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  18. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 
  19. 21 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    A. Weisgerber commented  · 

    The great advantage of IDW over Thiessens polygons is that it allows on-the-fly reconfiguration of the zone of influence for each rainfall station when some are down, without needing manual specification of input B/C. It is also more accurate when many rainfall stations are down, in which case the inputs B/C are not valid any more.

    A. Weisgerber supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base