Dr. Jack and BLIPmaps

[brianDG303[_2_]]

Recently I decided to start becoming proficient in the use of Dr.
Jack's BLIPmaps but read on his site (quote) "the bottom line is
probable termination of this website a year from now." So that took
the wind out of my sails. How are those of you who understand the
BLIPMAP system planning on coping with this?

Brian

[Tim Taylor]

On Oct 20, 9:45*pm, brianDG303 > wrote:
> Recently I decided to start becoming proficient in the use of Dr.
> Jack's BLIPmaps but read on his site (quote) "the bottom line is
> probable termination of this website a year from now." So that took
> the wind out of my sails. How are those of you who understand the
> BLIPMAP system planning on coping with this?
>
> Brian

I will miss Dr. Jack just as I miss Pez (John come back and create
some new ones). Dr Jack moved us forward light years in the ability
to forecast soaring conditions and for general ease of use to quickly
determine what the day should be like.

I will likely migrate to:

http://xcskies.com/

I have preferred Dr. Jack for ease of use for soaring pilots with the
Univiewer but will learn to use the XCSkies pages again.

[lanebush]

It would probably be simpler and less expensive if we just all pitched
in and repaired his sailplane!

[Bruce]

lanebush wrote:
> It would probably be simpler and less expensive if we just all pitched
> in and repaired his sailplane!
OK - I'll bite - what is wrong with it...

[Mike the Strike]

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

[Bruce]

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...

[Eric Greenwell]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Support XCSkies - it's developed and operated by a bunch of young
> enthusiasts and has many better features than Blipmaps.

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!

I never want to let a soaring pilot go, especially one that has
contributed so much, and continues to contribute. He is still improving
the Blipmaps, lately introducing a new viewer with geography and
topographic options, and custom forecast areas. Responding to my request
last month, he's improved the Cu cloudbase (potential > 0) map to help
estimate likely deviations from the forecast.

I think soaring forecasting will progress faster with BOTH DrJack and
XCSkies in operation, so I'm not ready to let go of anyone!

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

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Oct 21, 9:22*am, Eric Greenwell > 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.
>
> 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!
>
> I never want to let a soaring pilot go, especially one that has
> contributed so much, and continues to contribute. He is still improving
> the Blipmaps, lately introducing a new viewer with geography and
> topographic options, and custom forecast areas. Responding to my request
> last month, he's improved the Cu cloudbase (potential > 0) map to help
> estimate likely deviations from the forecast.
>
> I think soaring forecasting will progress faster with BOTH DrJack and
> XCSkies in operation, so I'm not ready to let go of anyone!
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly



But I think he going to let go of you...................

[Uncle Fuzzy]

On Oct 21, 9:22*am, Eric Greenwell > 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.
>
> 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!
>
> I never want to let a soaring pilot go, especially one that has
> contributed so much, and continues to contribute. He is still improving
> the Blipmaps, lately introducing a new viewer with geography and
> topographic options, and custom forecast areas. Responding to my request
> last month, he's improved the Cu cloudbase (potential > 0) map to help
> estimate likely deviations from the forecast.
>
> I think soaring forecasting will progress faster with BOTH DrJack and
> XCSkies in operation, so I'm not ready to let go of anyone!
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

So, how do we encourage him to continue?

[Mike the Strike]

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

[Mike Ziaskas]

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

[Ramy]

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

[Eric Greenwell]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Larry[_5_]]

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

[Bruce]

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