The things people get offended by these days. Jesus christ.
Firstly, I use Skippysky all the time when planning an obs session, as its cloud predictions are very good in my opinion. I mentioned this in my post to which you took offence
Secondly, I never took a swipe at skippysky for its seeing predictions, all I said was that it uses the jetstream to predict seeing, and I've found its seeing predictions to be not very accurate, for my area at least. This is not the fault of skippysky and never said it was. Its just my findings based on many nights. It's hard to predict seeing as there are many local and atmospheric variables at play. And for this reason, pretty much any model that predicts seeing (e.g. Clearsky clock, 7timer) is rarely going to be accurate. So no, it's not an attack at your product. it's fact.
I don't see how any of this is "whinging", but whatever, everyone is free to believe what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew_d_cool
G'Day,
"Skippy sky's seeing predictions is based on the presence of the jetstream, and doesn't take into account any lower level atmospheric activity."
Sorry mate, but that's just cr*p.
Skippysky does, and always has, taken into account winds at the standard ground level of 10metres. Just like it says in the online Help file,
and just like it does in the code.
In fact the last adjustment to the algorithm applied more weight to the 10m winds, based on a paper describing the greater influence of boundary layer winds on Seeing.
Now if people actually paid for the product, and thus enabled a whopping great download quota and mega fast connection, then data for every layer in the GFS model could be downloaded, and the Seeing forecast could be expected to improve. As it stands, for free you get the two most important of the 26 available layers in the model.
But I guess it's just easier to whinge at a freebie than do something about it that involves reaching into your hip pocket? Or, Heaven Forbid, read the Help file.
Kind Regards,
Andrew Cool
Author, SkippySky
|