On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:16:48 -0600 Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > I know different people will have different opinions on this, but I feel > that simply interpolating over time to the "closest" data is just as > good as anything. Interpolating spacially between the closest 3 > stations is attractive, but remember this data is already starting to > get old by the time we get it so we will never be exactly correct with > current conditions. [ snip ] > Personally, I think it would be a *lot* simpler, and arguably just as > accurate to do a temporal interpolation towards the latest data at the > closest weather station.
Another issue is the fact that the data available from the METAR station seems sometimes *very* old (e.g. a day or more). I've flown (in FlightGear) around a metropolitan area where I know exactly what the weather's like (e.g. clear skies), and found it change from roughly correct weather to something *wildly wrong* (e.g. overcast down to 900 feet, which it was like earlier in the week but definitely not today) to something correct again (back to clear skies) as I fly 5 miles in a straight line over the metro area. So instead of spatial interpolation, one might consider weighted spatial averaging (e.g. a gather scheme with a broad Gaussian kernel or whatever) to lessen the effect of anomalous stations in densely sampled areas. > Lot's of > fun to be had if someone had the time to play with it ... I used to do stuff that bears some similarities to this for a living. Unfortunately, it was in FORTRAN. Heh. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
pgptjRd60lF7A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d