Xcskies

I am looking for an alternate point of contact for xcskies accounts.

I am now waiting for the second week for my subscribing and or response.
I did try contacting Chris Galli at Utah.edu, no response.

Last year it took two subscription purchases to get my subscription turned
on.
All attempts at a refund had no response.

Any guidance?

Dan

To give you an idea of how much Chris cares about XC Skies, the last post I can find from him on the XCSkies Google group is April of 2015.
Jim

I don't understand. It has always worked fine for me and accepted my
subscription without difficulty. Maybe that will change some day...

On 9/3/2016 9:30 AM, JS wrote:
To give you an idea of how much Chris cares about XC Skies, the last post I can find from him on the XCSkies Google group is April of 2015.
Jim

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 9:14:16 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't understand. It has always worked fine for me and accepted my
subscription without difficulty. Maybe that will change some day...

On 9/3/2016 9:30 AM, JS wrote:
To give you an idea of how much Chris cares about XC Skies, the last post I can find from him on the XCSkies Google group is April of 2015.
Jim

--
Dan, 5J

I have been a subscriber for 8 years and never had a problem

Richard

I've been using Dr Jack blipmap and RASP for over 10 years. Never had a problem, and it proved to be the most accurate forecasting tool around. And it 's free. Never used XCSkies, never had a reason to. Unless you live outside of the US I don't see a reason why paying for an inferior service with zero support. Sure the UI is much more modern and you can zoom in on the maps as much as you want, but this does not make it any more accurate. To the contrary.

Ramy

Did you really say that the ability to zoom in on a location makes the
forecast less accurate? I'd love to hear an explanation of that. I
might agree that the resolution for a tight zoom is not available, but
that does not make a 4-state region displayed in the size of a post card
more accurate, simply more dense. I find it very useful to be able to
pan and zoom over an area ranging from the local area to several
states. Admittedly I don't do many multiple state flights but the
capability is there.

I'd guess that all of these soaring forecasts come from the same input
data and use the same algorithms to generate the forecast. The only
difference is the user interface and its functionality. My experience
is that XCSkies has more display functionality.

If you've never tried XCSkies, why did you chime in at all?

On 9/4/2016 11:33 PM, Ramy wrote:
I've been using Dr Jack blipmap and RASP for over 10 years. Never had a problem, and it proved to be the most accurate forecasting tool around. And it 's free. Never used XCSkies, never had a reason to. Unless you live outside of the US I don't see a reason why paying for an inferior service with zero support. Sure the UI is much more modern and you can zoom in on the maps as much as you want, but this does not make it any more accurate. To the contrary.

Ramy

--
Dan, 5J

Zooming in is misleading since it increases the resolution of the map but not necessarily the resolution of the forecast.
I compared XCSkies to blipmap many times over the years (as recent as last weekend) and in all cases blipmap was more accurate in my opinion.
But I agree the UI is much better, but I don't trust a tool which is no longer supported.
The reason I chimed in is to remind folks that there is still a better alternative to XCSkies.

Ramy

Whoa, rocket man, aren't you the same guy who actively contributed to last winter's hotly debated all things FLARM posts, without owning or planning to own a FLARM? I think you might be calling the kettle black...


On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
....

If you've never tried XCSkies, why did you chime in at all?


Dan, 5J

OK, thanks for the reply.

It's apparent to me that zooming in does not increase resolution, only a
bigger picture with a closer view of the same information. Where I find
the zoom feature useful is when zooming out and seeing the best
(forecast) path to fly (on a macro scale).

I can't comment on whether or not XCSkies is supported or not as I've
never had occasion to contact the creator. My personal experience has
been uniform over the 6 years I've used it and never had a problem with
my subscription.

I also like the facility to create local area profiles and save them for
traveling. For example, I have profiles for Bishop, Minden, Nephi,
Driggs, Salida, Jean, and Moriarty. This makes it simple to get
tailored information for where I'm flying.

I recall hearing within the past few years that Dr Jack had retired and
was no longer maintaining his site. Apparently that was not the case.

My question about "chiming in", on second inspection, looked catty to
me. I did not intend it that way and I appreciate your discussion.

Regards,
Dan

On 9/5/2016 11:12 AM, Ramy wrote:
Zooming in is misleading since it increases the resolution of the map but not necessarily the resolution of the forecast.
I compared XCSkies to blipmap many times over the years (as recent as last weekend) and in all cases blipmap was more accurate in my opinion.
But I agree the UI is much better, but I don't trust a tool which is no longer supported.
The reason I chimed in is to remind folks that there is still a better alternative to XCSkies.

Ramy

--
Dan, 5J

Mea culpa. I probably did and, in my reply to Ramy which should pop up
soon, I apologized for the way that came across.

On 9/5/2016 12:40 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Whoa, rocket man, aren't you the same guy who actively contributed to last winter's hotly debated all things FLARM posts, without owning or planning to own a FLARM? I think you might be calling the kettle black...


On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 9:39:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
...
If you've never tried XCSkies, why did you chime in at all?

Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J