Windy 3D mode is back!
-
Cioa, ottimo lavoro, ti chiedo gentilmente di abilitare anche il radar e il satellite, grazie.
-
Wonderfull!
-
I like it. Keep up the good work.
I would love it if some simpler version is kept in the standard windy.
Thanks. -
3D view mode is perfect. This is great additional. Thank you.
Maybe, just for good visuality, you can add in this mode the daylight changes depends the time. -
I'm in Ontario , Canada , it is great to check on my family & friends especially when travel plans are in the offing now that we CAN travel .
-
hey its a little laggy but not bad over all its more useful
-
Awesome. This is the way all weather maps should be!
-
many thanks for this! I got the premium subscription just for this
-
Thank you!! I've missed the 3d globe so much!! :)
-
Thank you very much for returning of 3D mode!
-
A good addition to the functionality which will obviate the need for me to use Zoom earth once you include the functionality to visulaize the satelite and radar 3D as well include the JTWC and NOAA storm tracking. I am a an ocean sailor and these are features I use regularly for passage planning.
-
looks great
-
Hello,
I can not see country names correctly in Persian language on this
awesome 3D view mode. It shows letters separate, as you can see on the screenshot.
-
@mohsen_kimia Hello, country names are gathered from Openstreetmap.org, in case you noticed any error, please contact them directly.
-
I appreciate the ability to view global data - especially circulation - on a non-Mercator projection, but as a long-time teacher of cartography I think that the use of the term "3D" is highly misleading - at least when I clicked on a "3D" button I was not expecting simply the use of a different projection (all projections viewable on a flat screen or on paper are inherently 2D). Within cartography, what you have is really "2.5D". This means that each location has a 2-diensional location marker, with an additional attribute being "draped" over that location. A truly 3D representation would use each point in the dataset being represented by a 3 dimensional location coordinate (for example, northing, easting and elevation). Most 3D data would then have the attribute draped over that 3-dimensional locational grid.
A projection is a mathematically precise way of locating the locational grid on the surface that you find most useful: it introduces some kind of distortion - there is no "perfect" projection. Since computer cartography, you can choose from a huge variety of projections, adjusting the distortion to some very precise requirements, and you can introduce reprojection on the fly. This means that as one clicks and drags the centre of the representation, the distortion varies from one place to another.
I don't know the precise parameters of the projection you have chosen for your new projection; the choice of distortion seems to be such that the human eye will assume it is looking at the globe from space - this means you are compromising among all the distortions: an actual measurement of location towards the periphery of the map will be hard to do, but it will probably not matter too much since the viewer will choose to put their place of interest near the centre of the map where this effect is not required and you can extract accurate information quite easily (there is little distortion there).
I could go on forever about projections, and how to use distortion to best convey information. But my point is that they are all, as generally used and as you are using, inherently 2D + an attribute (or multiple attributes represented by different map symbols). Since 3D can be a reality (as in representing in a single diagram the attritbute - say temperature - at a range of elevations without changing anything - I think you may be shooting yourself and your subscribers in the foot as far as future improvements in information representation goes: if we already think we have true 3D (or 3.5D) then why work towards real 3.5D? BTW, there are lots of cartography/projection blogs out there for the true geeks and researchers! -
Of course "3D" is a language abuse (and so is "2.5D", too); nevertheless "3D" is nowadays generally understood as such by everyone, even by main contributors of modern GIS (e.g. ESRI).
I think the aim of Windy is not cartography (ArcGIS, Gogol Maps and other similar sites do this enough well; they hold the required money to do it); the main scope of Windy maps would be rather the Weather.
Thus, the so called "3D map" is just the Earth reduced to a dynamic sphere plotted on a flat web browser window. Of course it is a very rough approximation of the Terrestrial geoid... but finally who would like to get weather maps on such an ugly geoid, while "3D" does the deal for Weather maps? Moreover, holy "3D" actually has "4D": longitude, latitude, atmospheric level, and time validity of weather data layers.
About map projections: of course modern GIS can reproject on the fly any map data layer in thousands of different map projections, one more accurate than the other for a given point on Earth. But all this is pretty costly in terms of required hardware and map generation time. Thus, projections like the so-called Gogol (EPSG:900913), pseudo-projections like EPSG:4326, or famous "3D sphere", should be far enough pertinent for Weather maps on a free - or so cheap - web application. And I think Windy does all this at a pretty high performance rate: it is the most UI responsive public weather maps application I know.
-
Excellent work!
-
good...love it
-
For Radar data layer, just select the goat, known to run faster than turtles and rabbits:
-
@john-gp
You use 10 days forecast … not radar! There is no 10 days radar and a radar cannot predict the future. So the word ‘radar’ to mean forecast is a language abuse.
And for the 10 days forecast, there is no way to play it faster.
