What does every one use ?
my favorite is www.bom.gov.au/australia/meteye/?ref=ftr I find this the most accurate of the free ones Ive tried .
I like www.windy.com
pretty reliable. Can see up to about 7 days ahead with good predictions.
Yep, I like BOM but was recently shown this one. It is taking a while to learn how to use it best though.
earth.nullschool.net
I use Meteye a lot as it tends to have good weather effects due to land/coast interactions. Windy allows me to see the general impression better and gives me a better idea of what is coming long term. Both can be right and sometimes wrong - some of the time Meteye tends to over exaggerate by about 5 knots but then I did go out when they forecast a big blow and it really blew.
As far as I can see there is a step before all of this.
Each of the free models use simple algorthms to make raw feeds into pretty pictures.
The real question is what model is underlying the pretty picture.
For instance the NOAA models tend to drastically overplay low pressure systems in the SW pacific.
In this regard the Euro numerical model is better generally.
The best is any that rely on the JPN feed for SW Pacific as it has most input points and the best resolution.
Meteye due to cost reasons has very poor resolution.
All the free models do katabatic breeze really badly.
To demonstrate the point go to Weatherzone and compare the different prediction charts using the different available feeds.
The basic version is free access.
Interesting thread SandS!
I use Meteye, Seabreeze (for Bom stations) and PredictWind. I like logging the wind data when we're on the race course, and then use this later to reference to the forecast models just to see if I can pick one that's consistently accurate.
Inshore in the bay is a bit of a lottery, which you would expect being a bay. It's next to impossible to get repeatable accurate forecasts from any one of the models, but Meteye is the pick of the bunch for the bay to date. Even it has a fair share of misses, both higher and lower, but the stronger the wind the more accurate the model generally..
Offshore coastal, ECWMF is pipping Meteye to date. I use Predictwind which has a free subscription using both ECWMF and NOAA (called GFS), as well as an additional two of their own models called PWE and PWG. Their algortihms take the ECWMF and GFS models and add their own alogrithm's on top for higher resolution/quality.
The increased resolution is better but that's a subscription service, and when GFS or ECWMF are out so will be PWE and PWG.
I use the PW free service till I have a big race event, then I'll pay for that month for the higher resolution of 1km compared to to 50km res for the generic models. Then back to the free service after that.
I wouldn't say its money well spent or recommend it, it's more optimised for long distance planning than coastal, but it does give me more models to play with.
This is showing a screenshot showing the typical variance of alignment between the 4 models in PW. Where the models align it is generally accurate, where they differ is when it becomes a lottery as to which one proves to be right. So we do a passage plan for each model including Meteye, take them all with us and then pick the plan most aligned to what we are seeing.
Select to expand quoteShanty said..
I like www.windy.com
pretty reliable. Can see up to about 7 days ahead with good predictions.
yeah i was tracking that for 12 months or so , but on average 5 -10 knots lighter than real
Shaggy,
Do you use Predictwind for planning passages as well? Or would Bob McDavitt or some other router have better understanding of the data - I may be going to New Cal next year.
cheers
Phil
G'day Phil,
Me personally, I would do both , but if I had to choose I'd talk to a router or someone with good knowledge of that route.
The reason. I find when the models don't align to the reality, I get kinda stuck as I don't have the advanced knowledge to look around and make a call. Aside from standing face into the wind and sticking my left arm out to ID where the centre of the low pressure is, the cupboard is a bit bare.
I am getting the hang of picking when the weather system is delayed or early, But when it is completely out of kilter I tend to get a bit lost. To me, a pro is more useful in that regard.
Lydia gave me some good advice as I was working up the boat for its first big offshore leg of the criticality of regular logging of your barometric readings. This was something I'd forgotten about and it really helps when trying to work out what is going on. Pressure doesn't lie!
If I could interpret what the clouds and weather were telling me I'd be happy to have just PW. So, the above could be more a reflection on my skill level than an analysis of the model capability.
When the models are out I typically find the next 6 hourly update will correct it. You prob know/have all this, but just for discussion I find internet acccess for updates is obviously the key to maximising the benefit. For me, this meant simply buying the cable for my satphone so I could download the grib. I went a bought a new hot spot sat phone for this reason, so I could plug in the stupidly short stubby cable for data download and sit comfortably to use the phone. Most times I've downloaded a 5 day forecast and trundled off it's kinda crap by day 3, so internet access is a good thing. A typical good res grib averages about 300kb, so it's only a couple of minutes on Thuraya sat phone, and Thuraya is cheap and fast for data with good plans.
I use PW standard subscription at $150 for three months, the pro version is about $350 for 3 months. there is a basic cheaper plan than these but unsure of details, I've just never bothered looking at it.
You don't need the Pro. The main difference is an increase in resolution from 8km to 1 km. The 1km is pretty impressive in its detail, but you kinda need to be Will Oxley to really benefit from it 
. The sea temp Gribs and ocean currents in the Pro is really good also.
Sounds like a lot of fun Phil. Are you taking yours or someone elses?
Cheers,
SB
I almost exclusively use willyweather.com
They use both information from the BoM and the NOAA. I like the way you can layer the wind, tide, pressure ect over the one graphical image. The wind roses are also a feature I like when planning ahead.
Although you can type in a specific location, you still need to be aware of the actual recoding station (which is listed with the distance).
For coastal cruising, I also look at the BoM aviation forecasts. Far more accurate than anything else IMHO..
Select to expand quoteshaggybaxter said..
..Offshore coastal, ECWMF is pipping Meteye to date. I use Predictwind which has a free subscription using both ECWMF and NOAA (called GFS), as well as an additional two of their own models called PWE and PWG...
How does MeteoBlue compare?
I've noticed the BOM seem to over estimate regularly, but both ECMWF and GFS underest. the stronger wind at my current loc.
I tend to think that its more important to look at pressures and consider the movement of systems than to look at wind predictions, but declare am a newbie.
Very hard to look at pressures and isobar spacings on a prognosis chart and get an accurate prediction of the wind strength. You might get a good overall appreciation, but I doubt you'll be close on strength.
I like Buoy weather. Particularly accurate offshore.
www.buoyweather.com/map/new-south-wales
