http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3572562.stm :

:The virtual reality technology takes constantly-updated data
:and translates it into 3D images. The new forecasts will be on
:air from early next year.

:Rain is generated in 3D so that it actually looks like real rain, and
:as clouds sweep over the country, shadows are cast on the ground.

Looks 'nice' but I suspect it will actually make the forecast more
difficult to comprehend. The viewer will need to make some assumption
about the angle of viewing which is not always easy, even in real life.
For example, I always think the view over the bowler's arm in cricket
coverage makes the pitch look about four metres long.
--
Michael Parry
Tony Blair MP Anagram I'm Tory plan B

snip

Hmm, I'll reserve judgement until I see the final product but I'm not a fan
of the 'swoopy' weather graphics on other channels. In my eyes the simpler
the presentation the better; must be getting old..

Jon.

"Michael Parry" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3572562.stm :

:The virtual reality technology takes constantly-updated data
:and translates it into 3D images. The new forecasts will be on
:air from early next year.

:Rain is generated in 3D so that it actually looks like real rain, and
:as clouds sweep over the country, shadows are cast on the ground.

Looks 'nice' but I suspect it will actually make the forecast more
difficult to comprehend. The viewer will need to make some assumption
about the angle of viewing which is not always easy, even in real life.
For example, I always think the view over the bowler's arm in cricket
coverage makes the pitch look about four metres long.
--
Michael Parry
Tony Blair MP Anagram I'm Tory plan B

I'd be very sceptical until I see it - using 3D can sometimes make things
clearer, but can easily make things worse as well.

I think there is plenty of room for improving the current graphics though.

For example, they often show the animation of the rainfall radar as an
"aftercast", but I'd like to see a simulated rainfall radar animation for
the day ahead. This shouldn't be beyond the abilities of the technical team
and would give a good indication of how broken up or solid the rainfall
coverage is going to be. Far better to show that visually than give terse
percentages.

- Michael

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:13:56 +0100, "Jon O'Rourke"
wrote:

snip

Hmm, I'll reserve judgement until I see the final product but I'm not a fan
of the 'swoopy' weather graphics on other channels. In my eyes the simpler
the presentation the better; must be getting old..

Same here - I'm not against good graphics per se but all of this gee-whizz stuff
will be to no avail if they still only allow 45 seconds, put out recorded
forecasts or employ semi-literate "presenters". And what about radio?

The single best thing the Met Office could do to help professionals, interested
amateurs and the educated general public is to provide the 15 minute radar
update free of charge on the internet and digital TV interactive. I have a
digital TV box that also connects into my home WiFi network and it is very
useful to be able to display the Met Office radar animation on the TV, albeit
about 45 minutes old and of poor resolution.

Martin


Jon.

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
.. .
For example, they often show the animation of the rainfall radar as an
"aftercast", but I'd like to see a simulated rainfall radar animation for
the day ahead. This shouldn't be beyond the abilities of the technical
team
and would give a good indication of how broken up or solid the rainfall
coverage is going to be. Far better to show that visually than give terse
percentages.
The current system already provides a simulated radar forecast, eg:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/maps/soeapcip012.jpg

While it's great for frontal features, I'd imagine convective showers
wouldn't be handled that well.

MichaelJP wrote:

snippit
For example, they often show the animation of the rainfall radar as an
"aftercast", but I'd like to see a simulated rainfall radar animation
for the day ahead. This shouldn't be beyond the abilities of the
technical team and would give a good indication of how broken up or
solid the rainfall coverage is going to be.

Michael,
It's just a animated record, there is no element of forecasting. An
'aftercast' is something quite different.
I'd quite like to see such a simulation, however although it might not
be beyond the abilities of the technical team I'd say it is beyond the
abilities of the forecasters. Any forecast of rain presented
graphically is necessarily a pretty smudgy affair. Just look at the ever
changing detail in the radar images (assuming that it's the truth), that
detail or anything near it can never be forecast for a day ahead, I
think even just 'broken up or solid' is pushing it. The current
broad-brush attempts could be made a lot clearer, and maybe will.
Perhaps that's all you are asking.

Regards
Tom

"JPG" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:13:56 +0100, "Jon O'Rourke"

wrote:
snip

The single best thing the Met Office could do to help professionals,
interested
amateurs and the educated general public is to provide the 15 minute radar
update free of charge on the internet and digital TV interactive.

Only 15 ?! :-)

Going back to the subject I wonder if they can whip up a CGI version of Ian
McAskill, now that would be worth watching, well at least once.

Jon.

"Tom Allen" wrote in message
...
MichaelJP wrote:

snippit
For example, they often show the animation of the rainfall radar as an
"aftercast", but I'd like to see a simulated rainfall radar animation
for the day ahead. This shouldn't be beyond the abilities of the
technical team and would give a good indication of how broken up or
solid the rainfall coverage is going to be.

Michael,
It's just a animated record, there is no element of forecasting. An
'aftercast' is something quite different.
I'd quite like to see such a simulation, however although it might not
be beyond the abilities of the technical team I'd say it is beyond the
abilities of the forecasters. Any forecast of rain presented
graphically is necessarily a pretty smudgy affair. Just look at the ever
changing detail in the radar images (assuming that it's the truth), that
detail or anything near it can never be forecast for a day ahead, I
think even just 'broken up or solid' is pushing it. The current
broad-brush attempts could be made a lot clearer, and maybe will.
Perhaps that's all you are asking.

Regards
Tom

The problem with the current rainfall forecast is it is just a map of
probabilities so if like today we have frontal rain followed by showers, the
shower area would just show as a dark shaded area.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather see those showers presented as discrete
blobs as per the actual rainfall radar images, even if obviously the number,
position and size of the shower "blobs" would be just intelligent simulation
taking into account terrain, convergence, etc.

- Michael

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
. ..
Snip

The problem with the current rainfall forecast is it is just a map of
probabilities so if like today we have frontal rain followed by showers,
the
shower area would just show as a dark shaded area.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather see those showers presented as discrete
blobs as per the actual rainfall radar images, even if obviously the
number,
position and size of the shower "blobs" would be just intelligent
simulation
taking into account terrain, convergence, etc.

- Michael

Sounds familiar. An example of the modified mesoscale output can be seen
here :-
http://wgcef.fmi.fi/docfiles/WGCEF_N...cleaned_up.doc (fig2)
It will be interesting to see if the new system can incorporate the modified
model fields (which the forecast is supposed to be based on..) as opposed to
the processed raw model data occasionally shown that Darren mentioned.

Jon.

Martin Rowley wrote:
"JPG" wrote in message
...

The single best thing the Met Office could do to help professionals,

interested

amateurs and the educated general public is to provide the 15 minute

radar

update free of charge on the internet and digital TV interactive.


... I wonder if this will in fact happen, or at least 30 minute interval
shots. When the current hourly imagery was used on the screen, it was
also fed to the web site. To give the best image-loops in any updated
graphics display, they are going to have to go to 30min at least and
perhaps 15min: that means we *might* get such fed to the web site ....
let's hope so.

It still surprises me that the Met Office have not started broadcasting
weather information on digital TV; on a dedicated weather channel.

When you look at the huge number of "minority interest" (to be generous)
channels that clearly must make a profit, there must surely be a very
large profit to be made out of a weather channel. The Met Office seem to
have an interest in making money and have access to the raw material.


--
Howard Neil