Xcskies

[Dan Mockler]

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

[JS]

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 Marotta]

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

[Richard[_9_]]

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

[Ramy[_2_]]

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 Marotta]

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

[Ramy[_2_]]

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

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

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 Marotta]

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

[Dan Marotta]

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

[Eric Bick (ZN7)]

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 11:33:52 PM UTC-6, 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

Disclaimer: I am not an expert(i.e. meteorologist), but I have read and researched a fair amount on this topic, so will share some of what I think I've learned.

First, I've been using Dr. Jack and XCSkies (as well as at least 4 other forecasting sites) for more years than I care to count. Since 2010, my subscription period to XCSkies, I have had no subscription issues. Each year it has renewed smoothly. I've also had no issues getting responses to questions when I've asked, but then I haven't asked any for the past couple of years.. Note that these models are all automated. The data are produced and users just have to initiate a hookup to take it in and put it into their website and then display it with whatever representations they think appropriate. There are many Dr. Jack sites set up by others that take the same basic data, but post it in different formats to make it useful for a particular soaring site. XCSkies took a different approach to displaying these data. The websites themselves pretty much run on automatic.

Second, there is no difference in accuracy between Dr. Jack and XCSkies (and any other site that uses the standard GFS, NAM, RAP models. Each model has its own cell resolution, from coarse to fine, and time frame, and each gives the same output. This is a set parameter, regardless of zoom level. They all use the same algorithms and same data inputs, depending on the model.. So they all give the same output for the time of data calculation, the remainder is a matter of presentation.

There is a difference when looking at NWS sites because the meteorologists, using the same models, will put an experiential factor into their forecasts, i.e. they tweak the results regardless of what the models say. Hence NWS forecasts will often deviate substantially from XCSkies or Dr. Jack for basic parameters. It is quite instructive to read the NWS meteorologists reasoning for their forecasts, and also note their comments on model convergence or divergence for a few days out.

The accuracy does depend on where the actual soundings are made, and then the computer model interpolation of the models for the location you are interested in. In some cases, this can be reasonably accurate, for others totally and obviously incorrect because the sites are so far from the actual sounding location.

In comparing between forecast sites, one has to be sure they are comparing the forecasts with the same models. On XCSkies, which enables easily comparing GFS, NAM and RAP for the same day/time there will be considerable differences having to do with cell resolution, time frame, and model differences ranging from no soaring to a great day to soar. Further, in some locations, GFS will be more accurate than RAP (theoretically the most accurate), and v.v. in other locations. You have to build an experience base to know which works best for where you fly. When I go to a new location, I generally average the forecasts of the three models - which is probably about as good as anything. (Note; there have been studies showing that weather forecasting is about 50% accurate, regardless of model. Weather is a dynamic, nonlinear phenomenon. Forecasting is linear extrapolation and interpolation, which leaves a lot of room for things to change in short order.)

XCSkies is the clear UI winner for ease of use (my opinion). As Dan says, you can go anywhere and get a forecast very easily. However, there are things XCSkies does not do and Dr. Jack's blipmaps do. For a wave or convergence forecast, Dr. Jack gives it direct. XCSkies has to be interpreted for convergence (you can get it by looking at winds aloft), but doesn't attempt wave forecasting. Dr. Jack, on the other hand,can give pretty accurate wave forecasts (as I discovered flying in Boulder, CO). If you really want to know the likelihood of wave, there is a separate site that shows a forecast of the jet stream out to seven days, which is a major factor driving wave conditions. You can also look at the whole earth winds map at various altitudes to give an idea of trends.

On the other hand, XCSkies readily gives a route forecast for a task. You can put in a start time and finish time, enter the route, and get a reasonable idea of what the flight will be like for good lift spots, dead spots, and the like as a function of time of day. The model takes into account winds and lift, and shows how the day might progress over the route. I can do this with Dr. Jack as well, but it is more laborious.

Both Dr. Jack and XCSkies have periodic update issues having to do when the model inputs are available. Often, a forecast for current day+1 on Dr. Jack just isn't available. Sometimes it's not available the day of planning to fly. XCSkies has the same issue. If one site doesn't get the model outputs, the other site won't either. Of course, it can be an issue with one site or the other not connecting, but that is invisible to users - it just shows up as "no data."

Bottom line is that Dr. Jack set the bar and the method. Some present data as he did originally, others, like XCSkies, have tried a different means of data presentation. In the end, both (in my opinion) are tools that are helpful, both have strengths and weaknesses - but that's soaring. I haven't found one superior to the other. Both are simply inputs that are factored into deciding whether to fly and what it might be like. A question is whether you get a better idea of soaring conditions by using one model or several. Perhaps the answer is that it depends on what each of us is comfortable using.

My favorite "forecasting" method has been to go to the gliderport, launch and see what develops. This is 100% accurate, and supersedes any forecasting model. Had some of my best days this way.

Sorry for the long post.

Eric -

[Ramy[_2_]]

Eric, thanks for the detailed analysis. Very helpful.

Ramy

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:37:10 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Eric, thanks for the detailed analysis. Very helpful.
>
> Ramy

The key things to keep aware of when using any of these sites (Unisys, Dr. Jack, XCSkies, TopMeteo) are:

1. What model data are you looking at (GFS, NAM, RAP, etc.) along with the knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each related to your area.

2. What model run are you seeing. Each site occasionally lags on the model run that is being displayed. You do not always see the most recent.

[Dan Marotta]

On 9/5/2016 8:58 PM, Eric Bick (ZN7) wrote:
> My favorite "forecasting" method has been to go to the gliderport, launch and see what develops. This is 100% accurate, and supersedes any forecasting model. Had some of my best days this way.
Wonderful explanation, Eric, and I wholeheartedly agree with the above
statement! BTW, I enjoyed meeting you at the airport the other day.

Now, if only the monsoon would quiet down...
--
Dan, 5J

[Eric Bick (ZN7)]

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 10:03:36 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 9/5/2016 8:58 PM, Eric Bick (ZN7) wrote:
> > My favorite "forecasting" method has been to go to the gliderport, launch and see what develops. This is 100% accurate, and supersedes any forecasting model. Had some of my best days this way.
> Wonderful explanation, Eric, and I wholeheartedly agree with the above
> statement! BTW, I enjoyed meeting you at the airport the other day.
>
> Now, if only the monsoon would quiet down...
> --
> Dan, 5J

Amen re the monsoon stuff. Getting tiresome.

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 5:51:11 AM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:37:10 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> > Eric, thanks for the detailed analysis. Very helpful.
> >
> > Ramy
>
> The key things to keep aware of when using any of these sites (Unisys, Dr.. Jack, XCSkies, TopMeteo) are:
>
> 1. What model data are you looking at (GFS, NAM, RAP, etc.) along with the knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of each related to your area.
>
> 2. What model run are you seeing. Each site occasionally lags on the model run that is being displayed. You do not always see the most recent.

Topmeteo is different from Blipmaps and XCSkies in that they have their own proprietary model; they use data from NWS only to set initial conditions. Consequently the forecast from Topmeteo can be quite different from Blipmap.. Also, Topmeteo gives hourly forecasts; RAP is only available on 3 hour intervals.

I have compared the RAP model soundings to the actual balloon (RAOB) soundings and have found a significant loss in vertical resolution. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but other times the real data shows a distinct temperature inversion that is lost in the models. This results in stronger thermals to significantly higher cloud bases, and clouds vs blue, than what the models predicted. This happened day after day this summer in Ely. If you want the REAL picture you MUST get "under the hood" and understand how the soundings work and do your own real vs model comparisons.

All in all, however, Topmeteo is clearly superior to Blipmaps and XCSkies.

Tom