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
