NO, this is what you said :-
"Skippy sky's seeing predictions is based on the presence of the jetstream, and doesn't take into account any lower level atmospheric activity."
Note the " doesn't take into account any lower level atmospheric activity"
That's the erroneous statement. It is simply not true, and needs correction.
As for the including the jetstream, I know top notch planetary imagers
who hang off every movement in the jetstream. In fact, some prefer a little jetstream activity to none at all!!
So there's good reason for incorporating the jetstream into the Seeing algorithm.
Now whether you find the predictions accurate or not, is indeed a matter
a matter for individual observation.
Believe me when I say I personally wish it was more accurate.
And I'll happily accept a more accurate algorithm that anyone can cite
in the literature, that can be implemented using GFS data.
Andrew Cool
www.skippysky.com.au
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgc hunter
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. |