I noticed your app uses precipitation amounts for rain instead of composite reflectivity. Can there be an option for reflectivity?
Definitely, it’s high on my to-do list.
No worries. I’m not happy for the color spectrum but I can fix that later.
Actually I like it. Or, give the user the option to make their own pallette.
Pallettes are on the to-do list too. I should just publish my todo list
Regarding the intensity for the HRRR for reflectivity.
Why does it change as you move from comp ref, to 1km and 4km?
I understand that the area size is different but why would that change the intensity?
The NOAA info states this for the data:
- entire atmosphere (considered as a single layer) composite reflectivity [db]
- 4000 m above ground reflectivity [db]
- 1000 m above ground reflectivity [db]
I’m not a meteorologist, nor do I know much about radar, but I can imagine that reflectivity is based on water droplet density and size. According to wikipedia is droplet number and size.
It’s apples and oranges if you compare composite reflectivity with 1000m and 4000m, so let’s compare 1000m to 4000m. I can imagine there will be more droplets at 1000m compared to 4000m because the number of droplets at 1000m included those who have fallen from above and there may be much more water in the air (humidity) at 1000m compared to 4000m and hence, more to condense into droplets.
I am assuming this from my little knowledge of radar and weather so my assumptions may be wrong I’m just the messenger, I maintain the horses and deliver the data to you. It’s up to you to make sense of the message
Maybe someone else with a bit of knowledge might like to chime in.
Perfectly Said @duane
Your explanation helps some but doesn’t fully explain what I’m after.
I’ll keep searching.
What are you searching for?
Could you add the navgem model?
It’s likely I can add NAVGEM but the better question is “Should I add NAVGEM?”.
- it’s easier to add a feature/data source compared to removing it since users rely on it and users hate it when I remove something (think hate email and 1-star reviews)
- every feature or data source costs in terms of maintenance, support, processing/server load
- adding a feature/data source will delay the addition of other features, i.e., we need to prioritize too.
So we need to justify every feature and data source. If NAVGEM is not as good as GFS or used by less than 1% of users, then it’s a expensive data source.
So in summary, the answer is yes, but you need to convince me why and that it’s high priority
Based on your response it would seem I shouldn’t request any more models at all.
@Dave not what he is saying. Anyone can make a request it may or may not be added depending on how popular said request is. If you feel the model is important explain why it is. It’s difficult to add items if only one person is requesting it. @duane has a Huge to do list. If others like the idea it will get added. Don’t get upset or discouraged have patience, as I mentioned before coding is not easy. Thank You for Your interest and Thoughts. Request are Appreciated. Thank You
@Dave I asked for an option to be added but found out it would be very difficult to do but I keep asking for other options etc. Just depends on the difficulty and popularity. again Thanks for Your Request and for Supporting Flowx.
As @BrianLY-38 said I have a long list of features and data to add. For example, here is my list of data on the priority list:
- USA Blend model 10km
- DWD waves
- Seasonal forecast (CFS)
- Ensemble models
- 16-day FV3
NAVGEM is on the big list but is not prioritised. I looked it up quickly and it didn’t jump out at me as a “Wow” data sources - in fact, I’ve seen it many times before. I had another quick look and I can’t find much details, the best I could find is a 37km resolution.
So NAVGEM is on the list but it’s hard to prioritize it. If you think it should be a priority, you need to explain why.
If you think it should just be on the list of data sources, then it is.
The reason why I asked you for an explanation is because you started this post with:
Then I added it, then spent a bit of time researching and explaining the reflectivity data and then you said:
So I don’t want to go and add NAVGEM and you say “It’s not what I’m looking for”.
I am quite busy, actually very busy, and the easier you can make it for me, the more likely something will happen.
For example, a user asked for the graph scales to go up in increments of 2, 5, or 10. He gave me the algorithm to calculate it and the change was in the next release a week later. Since then another user wanted improvements to it, but gave no algorithm, and 3 months later it’s still not improved.
I guess I misunderstood what you wanted.
I assumed that you would want to add every available model. Not being a programmer I didn’t know the difficulty in adding these models so when you asked why I wanted the NAVGEM it threw me for a loop.
The only reason I asked for it was because of the approaching tropical season to have another option to observe. I know it’s not a popular model so disregard the suggestion.
Going forward I will keep the above in mind when suggesting new features.
Keep up the great work.
@Dave Please keep the Thought juices flowing and the requests coming
Some things may be easy to add but they might carry a long term cost in terms of storage on servers (I’m running out of space on the servers), maintenance cost or support cost. It’s good to look at the whole picture.
I’ll start a post for data source and list the data sources on the list. I’ll put on the priorities and the lesser ones. Then people can comment on what they would like next.
BTW, when I first started Flowx I added pretty much everything people asked and I got into a lot of trouble with in the complexity of the app, bugs and the support. Now I’m a bit more careful and I probe a lot more for reason as to why they want a feature. I take more time to think about what to add and why.
If you’re in the USA or Europe, there are far better (amazing) data sources compared to NAVGEM.