I am having troubles interpretating the output of r.cost.full.
Currently i am working on a project comparing some arcgis tools with qgis tools (workflow and output). One of my examples is to make a cost distance raster with both softwares.
The input Cost Raster and the Input Start Points (point features) are the same in both softwares. My problem here is that the result values of arcgis are within 0 and ~7 which make sense in terms of interpretating. But the result values of r.cost.full are between ~0.02 and ~0.3. When i visualize the output rasters with the same amount of classes, the rasters look very similar.
I ran the calculations on arcmap 10.2 and 10.3 and on qgis 2.6 and 2.8.2
Does anyone know why the values are so different? Am i missing something obvious here?
أكثر...
Currently i am working on a project comparing some arcgis tools with qgis tools (workflow and output). One of my examples is to make a cost distance raster with both softwares.
The input Cost Raster and the Input Start Points (point features) are the same in both softwares. My problem here is that the result values of arcgis are within 0 and ~7 which make sense in terms of interpretating. But the result values of r.cost.full are between ~0.02 and ~0.3. When i visualize the output rasters with the same amount of classes, the rasters look very similar.
I ran the calculations on arcmap 10.2 and 10.3 and on qgis 2.6 and 2.8.2
Does anyone know why the values are so different? Am i missing something obvious here?
أكثر...