Low storage threshold based on 10 cm depth - #2357
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
Author
|
Maximum balance error over all basins comparison:
|
visr
approved these changes
Jun 5, 2025
visr
left a comment
visr
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems very effective at getting unstable models to run, and doesn't have a negative effect for stable models.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #2354.
Note that this implementation, other than what the issue title implies, still uses the storage as the argument for the reduction factor, only the threshold storage is based on a depth of 10 cm.