<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">Hi Ria,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Many thanks for taking the time to look at data quality.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Based on looking at the images below, the old plots are at 10m/30ft and the new plots are at 2m/6ft. That could explain a difference.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">To do a fair comparison (beyond a single location), I’d suggest using METARs across a wider area. I have done this for the UK and find ‘on average’ the forecasts are acceptable based on feedback. Note that is not perfect nor correct.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Then there is the comparison over time. The guess is that is a regular problem, as a single day for a single point is probably too small a sample to conclude one way or another. Even government-funded forecasts do not guarantee it’ll be correct every time, all the time, at all locations. Here’s the UK quality comparison URL:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://rasp.stratus.org.uk/index.php/daily-data-quality-checker">https://rasp.stratus.org.uk/index.php/daily-data-quality-checker</a></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">I have often advised to use RASP output with at lest two other sources to confirm concurrence. If they are all the same, then you can probably trust RASP. If not, then it’s up to the pilot to use experience on what is going on and likely to happen.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On reusing the old models, there would be a significant technical redevelopment effort required to retro fit. There is also the problem of software support as the 2.X WRF binaries and NCL 6.X plotting subsystems are no longer supported. Python-based plotting is now the supported path, but needs someone to rewrite the plotting core of all this to make that work. It’s not impossible, but needs someone to volunteer and do.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Regards,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Darren</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 6 Jul 2025, at 08:22, Ria Moothilal <ria@airschool.co.za> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi <br><br>I'm giving feedback as requested. Today, the RASP Beta was wrong again, and interestingly, the old RASP 4km model was more accurate. Below are the forecasts for today, the 5th July at 11 am, as well as the actuals for Signal Hill taken by 3 live weather stations. Both the 1.3km and 4km old RASP models show that the north-west wind slows down before it reaches Signal Hill / Table Mountain. The RASP Beta 2km does not. This suggests that it's not just a resolution difference on the RASP Beta, but also either a source data or model parameter change that has taken place. The old RASP was accurate when compared to actuals, but the RASP Beta was completely wrong <br><br>The old RASP was the most accurate weather forecast for the Western Cape. Nothing came close. I think it would be sensible to merely recreate these same models on the new user interface<br><br>1. RASP Beta 2km </div><div><div><image.png></div></div><div><br>2. Old RASP 4km<br><div><image.png></div><br>3. Old RASP 1.3km<br><div><image.png></div><br>4. Actuals from weather stations at Signal Hill and Sea Point:<br><div><image.png></div><br><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Ria Moothilal<br>Chief Flight Instructor<br>+27 78 095 8136<br><a href="http://www.airschool.co.za" target="_blank">www.airschool.co.za</a></div></div></div></div>
<span>-- </span><br><span>Rasp mailing list</span><br><span>Rasp@lists.zsd.co.za</span><br><span>https://lists.zsd.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rasp</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>