When I first discovered this I was in love... I thought, how cool! Then I realized, at least in my experience, that it was about as accurate as a randomly generated computer algorithm.. so I gave up on itUsairnet
I use to love Wunderground until they were bought out by Weather Channel/ weather.com.. Everything seemed to go down hill after the purchase and I have a bad feeling it'll end up with more news stories that I don't care about instead of just weather.As far as weather sites I hate?
www.weather.com is a total abonimation. The front page is a mess of ads and random articles and the actual weather forecast itself is not laid out in a very detailed or logical manner
In contrast, I prefer wunderground... which has gotten worse lately, but at least the home page of the site gives you a nice visual of your weather
wunderground:
vs. weather.com: (basically some kind of tabloid)
Well that would explain why wunderground recently became less useful and getting the weather became more tedious. I thought I had read that somewhere, thanks for confirming! I used to love that site. Still pretty good and luckily the app (at least on android / pixel) is still pretty solid, but the site has changed, and not for the betterI use to love Wunderground until they were bought out by Weather Channel/ weather.com.. Everything seemed to go down hill after the purchase and I have a bad feeling it'll end up with more news stories that I don't care about instead of just weather
I still like it. It's just a graphical representation of the National Weather Service's GFS MOS Guidance model. Works pretty good around here in CO.We often post our favorites, how about some we abhor?
This one is not only wrong; it can lead one down the primrose path. Dangerous imo.
Wildly optimistic several times now.
Pretty depiction, seems detailed and a good ways out.
Usairnet
weather.com is bad...very bad..
I also used Wunderground heavily, but find it less useful since the buyout. If I'm not mistaken, the online products of Weather.com (including Wunderground) are now owned by IBM (which explains a lot).
It is FAR from being what it once was. You can still get raw model data (which I've used pretty heavily over time), but you really have to look to find it.
Read it and weep. (Yes, this explains a LOT)....IBM!!!!!???? Owns WU????!!!!
If that's true, kiss WU goodbye. IBM will run it into the ground in no time at all.
I still like it. It's just a graphical representation of the National Weather Service's GFS MOS Guidance model. Works pretty good around here in CO.
You pretty much have to do that with all forecast products. I find it helpful to read the "Forecast Discussions" from NWS offices where I intend to fly. You'll find they sometimes have to flip a coin between divergent models, and issue broad-brush forecasts. One of the models might be more reliable one week, and another one the next week.I have to take usairnet and MOS with huge caution and continue to back up info with multiple sources, taking the most pessimistic to be my guide.
Eric, I have done two trips now where both usairnet and MOS said to expect excellent vfr weather and I barely was able to make the trip in one case and in the other it was silly-far off with undeserved optimism. I forgot to add in MOS to the other source I find I have to ignore.
For eg on my last trip which was into the edges of a tropical storm in the gulf last Wed, on Foreflight I had side-by-side MOS and TAFs which were wildly different - the pessimistic TAF was correct!
I'm glad to hear it is working for some but I have to take usairnet and MOS with huge caution and continue to back up info with multiple sources, taking the most pessimistic to be my guide.
Sounds like you believe these are different?
Oh. Can’t forget the WTForecast app with the naughty filter turned all the way off.
That’s real weather forecasting right there. LOL.
No, I’m not posting a screenshot.