Good news?

So after many things failed, and noticing that the angles were always messed up, I tried to run NM by changing the orientation of the waves, by defining the x-axis as pointing offshore. This led to high skill values in my test box, so I went ahead and ran the whole window. It took roughly 7 hours, because I subdivided the domain in smaller windows (84 x 84 m), with 3 iterations per frequency (to update the previous pass), retaining 5 frequencies in the band f=1/20-1/5 Hz but with a frequency resolution of 1/60 Hz (so more frequency bands were analized). These values could be changed to a faster configuration, but let's go step by step.

So here are the results, of the quilted map of the 196 windows used, for the two frequencied that yielded more results. No quantitative analysis of the relative importance of each one at this point.





Several things can be noticed:

1)Jetty influence: Clearly the jetty affects the analysis, because it is a constant signal, that does not correlate well with the wave data. Aditionally, the jetty casts a long shadow in which no radar signal is present, that explains the low skill in that area. This was something I expected to happen but it didn't show up in my previous runs.
2) Speeds: These are my main concern at the moment. Although they exhibit the associated deacceleration due to shoaling, the magnitude of the speed is rather high. I made a manual estimation for them to be near 5 m/s at x=800 m, but it seems that we are doubling that value. Something to dig in, definetely.
3)Angles: What I expected. Close to shorenormal for most of the domain, with a big patch of obliquely incidedent waves offshore of the jetty and in the channel, probably an influence of the jetty.

Here is a portion of a movie from that run (190905). Note that Benson Beach is at the top and not at the right, as it should be.