We use cookies to make your experience of our website better. You can delete or block cookies, but some parts of this website won't work without them. By using this website you accept our use of cookies.

PeterC

29/09/2011 19:07:13

How about allowing names for nodes/units that are independent of the nodes/units they are attached to or that are attached to them. In the network chart the first column is "Label1", but it really allows no freedom for real labeling that is meaningful.
For instance, I might like to have a river section called "XS4", which goes to a culvert called "HwyCulvert". In the entry for "XS4", I would tell it to attach to "HwyCulvert", & in "HwyCulvert" I would tell it to attach to "XS4". At present the culvert takes the name of the river section in order to link to it, so is labelled "XS4", which is extremely unintuitive, especially when trying to keep track of more than a few nodes. Other node types would be treated in the same way.

Sign in to vote

5
-
-4
1
+

fcebron

29/09/2011 19:07:13

You have to add a junction between your section and your culvert if you want that they have different names.

In fact, in ISIS, we enter names of nodes and not names of units.... And the node upstream of your culvert is the section.. that's why they have the same name...

If the developpers of ISIS change this, they will change all the philosophy of ISIS :(

nsteele

01/11/2016 20:26:18

The naming convention is very confusing. Having an object identifier for the instance of the unit with a suffix for each connection point would be much easier to follow. Probably too late now???

Sign in to create or reply to forum posts.

Privacy & Terms

Copyright