On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:17:57 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Up to this point, I've used XCSkies, but I keep hearing more and more about Skysight. I'm trying to determine if I should switch over for the 2020 soaring season. (For U.S. thermal soaring, no ridge/wave.) I've done a trial, but it was only seven days and I didn't really get enough experience with it to determine if I should make the switch.

They both have the HRRR model, but the only other option on Skysight is it's own model which I know nothing about. XCSkies have several models to chose from, of varying vertical/horizontal resolutions.

It also seems to me that Skysight updates the model less frequently the day prior and day of soaring compared to the RAP/HRRR models on XCSkies. That would negate a lot of the benefit of the HRRR model, wouldn't it?

If I'm wrong about any of these assumptions, please educate me. I'm still a neophyte when it comes to using weather products for soaring.

Can someone with knowledge on the models and these websites' methods for employing them describe which is more powerful in predicting actual soaring conditions?

What makes Skysight worth the cost, being twice as expensive as XCSkies?

I'm still a neophyte with SkySight, but even so, I prefer it to XC Skies. My experience so far (limited) is that SkySight is more accurate. The colors have an adjustable translucency where the base topography can show through better, and SkySight also has the ability to use Google satellite imagery for the base map, which is quite helpful. You also get a "point forecast" with SkySight for any point on the map, as well as Skew-T charts for any point on the map, if you like to use them. There is a route-planning function with SkySight that you don't get with XCSkies, as well as a route suggestion function with SkySight. All in all, there are many more useful features to SkySight than XC Skies--well worth the money, in my limited opinion.