X/C Skies does have the option of switching from the GFS global and
NAM models to the less optimistic (&more accurate) RUC model. But I
do agree that Dr. Jack's site is easier to use and makes for a better
forecasting tool.

Mike Ziaskas
San Diego, CA


I fly in the NW area, and I have to disagree very strongly on this. I've
subscribed to XCSkies since it began, and despite it's very flexible
presentation and interesting features, it's primary function
(forecasts!) are not as good as the Blipmaps. The NAM is adequate, but
still not as good as the Blipmap RUC for the day's forecast.

But it's not just the better forecast: while I was initially quite taken
with the Google map presentation of XCSkies, I've found it's easier and
quicker to switch back and forth between parameters with DrJack's
"stodgy" old images, instead of waiting for everything to load again
when I switch views in XCSkies Google maps.

The "better features" are interesting, and might someday be useful, but
as long as they use the GFS model, they are worthless in my area. I
tried to make them work - couldn't do it. The GFS model is just too
optimistic to be of any value.



Dr. Jack did some great pioneering work but has turned into a grumpy
old curmudgeon - let him go!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly