![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 21, 10:13*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
AFAIK XCSkies uses exactly the same data set Dr. Jack does and you can choose the model. *I rely mostly on the NAM and RUC but find the GFS has its value too. *I agree that it takes longer to load, but this is generally not an issue. We all owe a debt to Dr. Jack for pioneering this area and making it available to soaring pilots. *However, once he started charging for access and it became a service, he needed to become responsive to his customers, something he's not been so good at. *Since his support and commitment has been spotty for the past few years, I've decided to rely on a service that has so far been better supported. If you folks really think it's needed, it might be nice if some younger folk took the project over from Dr. Jack as he retires. Mike Maybe someone who is computer and metheorology savvy would want to buy the service from Dr Jack? I am sure many of us would be happy to continue pay the $20 annual fee for just keeping it alive. Ramy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike the Strike wrote:
AFAIK XCSkies uses exactly the same data set Dr. Jack does and you can choose the model. I rely mostly on the NAM and RUC but find the GFS has its value too. I can choose the model for the XC map forecasts, but I don't see any way to choose it for the Quickcasts, 3 day point cast, or XC Explorer. Am I missing something? I agree that it takes longer to load, but this is generally not an issue. It's a small issue at home, but I often fly from places with slow connections, or no connections, so it's better if I can download once and not need the internet again. The big issue is forecast quality. I've used both side by side since XC came out, and have gradually drifted back to using mostly Blipmaps, because their accuracy seemed better. This could be NW quirk. snip If you folks really think it's needed, it might be nice if some younger folk took the project over from Dr. Jack as he retires. There are a number of "mini-Jacks" running the RASP forecasts for specific areas. Perhaps one of them will pick up the Blipmaps, since they know a lot about the system already. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I never cared for the Dr Jack blip map format. I much prefer the way
the way information is presented in XC Skies and find the predictions to be very accurate. Dan Fitzgerald |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 21, 7:59*pm, "
wrote: I never cared for the Dr Jack blip map format. I much prefer the way the way information is presented in XC Skies and find the predictions to be very accurate. Dan Fitzgerald A significant shortcoming of XC Skies (I do subscribe to it) vs Dr Jack is a lack of convergence predictions and wave predictions. In California/Nevada, Dr. Jack's convergence and wave RASP plots often can be "almost like cheating". Or are those plots on xc skies and I'm just clueless on how to get them? Larry |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bruce wrote:
Mike the Strike wrote: Support XCSkies - it's developed and operated by a bunch of young enthusiasts and has many better features than Blipmaps. Dr. Jack did some great pioneering work but has turned into a grumpy old curmudgeon - let him go! Mike Well - I have been trying for two weeks to get an activation reply out of XCSkies. Would love to support them , but you have to get a response. I emailed them direct today. Let's see... Chris sorted it out for me. Some strange SMTP relay problem meant I was not getting the messages. Now I just have to work out how it works... Bruce |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question about blipmaps | Spam | Soaring | 3 | August 25th 09 01:47 AM |
BLIPMAPS and GPS_LOG | Henryk Birecki | Soaring | 0 | June 7th 07 10:19 PM |
Blipmaps | Tom Ruble | Soaring | 4 | May 27th 04 02:48 AM |
ETA BLIPMAPs | DrJack | Soaring | 0 | March 1st 04 03:18 AM |
Dr Jack's BLIPMAPS | Jim | Soaring | 7 | December 2nd 03 08:44 PM |