Closed mpalmsten closed 1 year ago
My only concern is with V2.0 (not changes to V1.3. From those below, I don’t understand the first bullet but I assume Meg does. I don’t recall changing the data formats for stacks but there could be different params fields (I can’t recall). The change of data filenames is expected. The color scheme in Figure 1, with blue being shallow, seems backwards. So I like V2.0 colors better anyway.
Thanks for looking at this, Eric.
YHS
Rob Holman Professor Emeritus
104 Ocean Admin Bldg. CEOAS-OSU Corvallis, Oregon, USA 97331-5503 ph: 1-541-740-9253 (cell) @.*** http://cil-www.coas.oregonstate.edu
On Dec 8, 2022, at 2:11 PM, Eric Swanson @.***> wrote:
Again, not that I think these warrant denying the pull request, but here are some notes on what I did to run the v2.0 demo on the same data as v1.3 and do a comparison:
• The 2 demos expect different formats in the structs of their .mat input data. Meg needed to provide data for Oct. 22, 2010 that fit for cBathy 2.0 • Changed 'DemoData' in line 18 of democBathyVersion2p0.m to '1287763200.Fri.Oct.22_16_00_00.GMT.2010.argus02a.cx.mBW.mat', the data for Oct. 22, 2010 • Also set dataStackName = '1287763200.Fri.Oct.22_16_00_00.GMT.2010.argus02a.cx.mBW.mat' on line 15 of democBathyVersion2p0.m • Note that the color schemes for the outputs of v1.3 and v2.0 appeared to be reversed in the output
To clarify, v1.3 demo depends on a teststack102210Duck.mat.mat structure with variable names data, t, xyz; v2 expects a .mBW.mat file. In order to compare v1.3 demo with the v2 demo code, I downloaded the .mBW.mat file from the OSU server, so that Eric could make the comparison plot for16:00 22 October 2010 showing the Crab survey and the cBathy results from both versions.
Merging cbathy v2.0 described in Holman and Bergsma 2021 https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13193996 into main branch.