Sign in to follow this  
Sesquashtoo

Does the NOAA weather interpreter give you accurate local weather?

Recommended Posts

Around the Great Lakes area...over the last two days...we have been drowning in constant rain, and thick scud.

 

I have noticed that the NOAA, does not seem to pass onto SMP (with Real Weather app set to ALWAYS), the proper weather metrics.

 

It has been pouring outside, yet...I have scattered clouds, with azure blue sky.  No rain, no thick scud and overcast. I think it truly doesn't work too well. I like the cloud groups it creates, but does not seem to reflect accurate weather. 

 

For a test, I removed the VS. lua...and then ran the XP internal 'get weather from the Net' tab.

 

As soon as that downloaded, I was drowning in rain, with overcast.  It was the internal routine that gave me accurate local weather.

 

Has anybody else had the NOAA not accurately setting up your own local metrics?  Just wondering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

What's the date on the meter when you go the the NOAA configuration screen? I noticed this too yesterday and the metar was from the 23rd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you ran the test with X-Plane weather, did you still have "Always" checked for SMP/RWC? In that case, clouds would have still been set by SMP/RWC. Only temp, pressure, winds and percipitation would have been set by X-Plane. As long as "Always" is checked, clouds will ... always be set independently by SMP/RWC. By the way, SMP/RWC doesn't do anything in terms of weather except for clouds. Everything else is either set by X-Plane or NOAA.

 

Also note that NOAA has nothing to do with clouds when "Always" is checked. SMP/RWC downloads its own NOAA data for clouds, and the METAR data doesn't always match.

 

SMP has its issues with displaying overcasts. It's discussed at their forum and within the scope for future releases I think. As for the blue sky - that may well be Ventura's fault. Currently it sets sky color based on visibility as opposed to cloud coverage. Either way has it's pros and cons - long story. But I think I'll be able to improve this soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you ran the test with X-Plane weather, did you still have "Always" checked for SMP/RWC? In that case, clouds would have still been set by SMP/RWC. Only temp, pressure, winds and percipitation would have been set by X-Plane. As long as "Always" is checked, clouds will ... always be set independently by SMP/RWC. By the way, SMP/RWC doesn't do anything in terms of weather except for clouds. Everything else is either set by X-Plane or NOAA.

 

Also note that NOAA has nothing to do with clouds when "Always" is checked. SMP/RWC downloads its own NOAA data for clouds, and the METAR data doesn't always match.

 

SMP has its issues with displaying overcasts. It's discussed at their forum and within the scope for future releases I think. As for the blue sky - that may well be Ventura's fault. Currently it sets sky color based on visibility as opposed to cloud coverage. Either way has it's pros and cons - long story. But I think I'll be able to improve this soon.

Thanks for the explanation.  I actually switched to AUTO for just SMP and Real Weather as I know that is the proper config.  It did give me the low lying scud and overcast and rain, with also the XP in-house download weather from the Net button enabled.

 

Ses

What's the date on the meter when you go the the NOAA configuration screen? I noticed this too yesterday and the metar was from the 23rd.

I'll have to look, but my observation does come from yesterday's session.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this is the primary reason why I stopped using NOAA. Around the area I live, for some reason it would pull reasonably correct weather from some stations, and absolutely clear blue sky from other nearby stations, even when it was solid overcast outside. If I did a loop around the Edmonton region, I'd go from full overcast (if the conditions called for it) to clear sky about 3 times.  This is using NOAA on it's own. Whereas the internal XP engine would give me more correct and constant conditions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this is the primary reason why I stopped using NOAA. Around the area I live, for some reason it would pull reasonably correct weather from some stations, and absolutely clear blue sky from other nearby stations, even when it was solid overcast outside. If I did a loop around the Edmonton region, I'd go from full overcast (if the conditions called for it) to clear sky about 3 times.  This is using NOAA on it's own. Whereas the internal XP engine would give me more correct and constant conditions.

That's been my result, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this