On 4/1/2011 10:21 AM, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:23 am, Eric wrote:

I followed both for a couple years, and Blipmaps gave more reliable
forecasts in my primary area, the Pacific NW. The "more features" were
intriguing, but not useful because they used the GFS model, which works
poorly in the NW area. I'll revisit XC Skies when they NAM model is
available with the "more features".

Eric:

XC Skies allows the user to choose between GFS, NAM and RUC for the
immediate forecasts. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages
and it's not always obvious that one is better than another. Our
experience in Arizona is that GFS gives a good overview a few days
ahead, but that NAM is the overall winner. RUC is often very good,
but we have found it frequently to overestimate wind speeds.

In the NW for the current days forecast, I found the RUC Blipmap to be
the best; the XCSkies NAM second best; GFS was OK for picking dud days
from great days a few days ahead.


A feature I really like is to get point forecasts and skew-t charts
for specific locations without having to input the lat/long.

Blipmaps have both features, and I sometimes use the point forecast when
I'm not sure I'm reading the color scale right.

What is missing from both programs is wave and convergence forecasting.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz