A customer wrote: pgf vs geo (why geo?)
I am serving as a team lead for a group of EVS users. I had a meeting with one of our team members this morning. He was having issues with his model; per the training he did he informed me that his understanding was that that he “had” to use make_geo_hierarchy to produce the geology file he needed. I recommended that he simply use the pgf format. He asked “well what is the need for a geo file then?” Other than providing stratigraphic ordering I was unable to provide an adequate answer. So, …What utility, other than stratigraphy, does the geo file structure offer us that the pgf file type does not? Because the results I get with pgf and smooth indicator_geology are so consistently “good”, I have since abandoned geo files altogether.
- If you know you are dealing with sedimentary geology and you have relatively few borings OR a region in the site where there are no borings, stratigraphic modeling will likely honor the site geology better.
- Stratigraphic modeling gives you true “layers” and therefore the ability to have Layer Thickness. Lithologic modeling has no “layers”….only materials and no concept of thickness.
- Stratigraphic layers explode (apart) in a more natural (logical) manner, even when there are pinched layers and lenses.
- Though I acknowledge the lack of a training video (or workbook) on this subject (it is in the works), stratigraphic modeling has the edit_horizons module which when used together with texture_cross_sections provides the ability to hand-edit stratigraphic layers to force them to match hand-drawn cross-sections and/or just to make minor modifications to pinched-out regions or horizon extrapolations.