Compatibility between MUSICX and MUSIC 6.3 and transitioning to MUSICX

This answers several questions related to compatibility.

eWater established a Technical Panel of MUSIC experts to guide the development of MUSICX. In collaboration with the Technical Panel we undertook extensive testing to ensure that results from MUSIC 6.3 are reproducible in MUSICX, this included regression testing by eWater’s hydrologists and members of the Expert Panel set up to advise on the development of MUSICX.

MUSIC 6.3 files (.msf) can be imported to MUSICX. When you import MUSIC 6.3 to MUSICX you will need to configure climate data. MUSICX accepts a variety of data formats including; .mlb (MUSIC meteorological template file), .csv, .txt and .dat.

MUSIC 6.3 cannot import MUSICX files.  

MUSICX is a major change to the software. We know that some of our community need time to learn the new features and transition to MUSICX. To ease the transition, MUSIC 6.3 remains available for use and eWater will continue to provide support services.

Products - MUSIC X

  1. What are the main benefits of MUSICX versus MUSIC 6.3.0?
  2. What new opportunities will MUSICX support?
  3. Does MUSICX have any new capability or science?
  4. How can unique or local conditions be incorporated?
  5. How do I write a plugin?
  6. Licensing, pricing and support
  7. Compatibility between MUSICX and MUSIC 6.3 and transitioning to MUSICX
  8. Is MUSIC-link available?
  9. Does MUSICX have Source functionality like inbuilt calibration and optimisation?
  10. Has the "edit all nodes of this type" functionality been retained?
  11. Does MUSICX have the ability to model sub-timestep scale routing along MUSIC links?
  12. Have extra routing models been added other than ‘none’, ‘translation’ and ‘muskingum-cunge’ that are in MUSIC 6.3?
  13. When you run a grassed swale in MUSIC 6.3 it has 100% removal efficiency for gross pollutants. The performance of the swale is also the same, regardless of whether it is 2% grade or 15% grade. Is this fixed in MUSICX?
  14. Does the flow transfer function within a generic node still ‘loose’ water from the model, or can I now account for this ‘lost’ water within a secondary link?
  15. Have the source node input properties been changed from MUSIC 6.3 or are many of the Source nodes still the same (residential, commercial, industrial) with the only variation in the nodes being their name?
  16. When a file is sent to a regulator to review, will it include the met-data or will they have to specify it separately?
  17. Do secondary links exist in MUSICX?
  18. Previous versions of MUSIC were not well accepted for use in WA due to unique soil conditions in the Swan Coastal Plain. Will MUSIC X be compatible for use in WA?
  19. How does the program know how to read the rainfall xls? Does it need to be in particular column etc. or can it work it out for itself?
  20. Has the MUSIC 6.3 bug relating to a maximum custom storage depth within a wetland been fixed

Feedback and Knowledge Base