AnsweredAssumed Answered

Cost distance produces unexpected results

Question asked by geoid23 on May 3, 2011
Latest reply on May 4, 2011 by geonetadmin
I am running cost distance on a 100x100 elevation dataset in 9.3. This is an area with pretty high relief and I am essentially running this to approximate overland time of travel for storm runoff. The problem is that the result is completely unexpected as compared to the cost raster and does not reflect the topography. It is almost like I am getting a Euclidean result in that the result radiates from the source and does not seem to reflect the cost raster.
I have included jpeg examples of the input (cost_surface) and result (cost_distance) with the source point for reference. Note the main channel running west to east in the center which should have "flow" directed to it before heading to the source as it is the least cost way to get downhill.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I've used this tool before with good result but not so much this time.