Precip Fields In Premium Point Forecast API
-
@Suty Its been 12 days haven't you reached any result about the issue?
-
@nikarayanpouya Hi, I am sorry about the delay. After further discussions, there is no bug in these data. Parameter
past3hprecipcontains convective and snow ones, however they cannot be added together since, both of them can contain convective or snow ones as well.
-
@Suty according to this diagram your data has still problem because if look closely the number you gave me for snow percip is larger than percip but the percip should be larger than conv and snow percip according to your diagram thats only concluded if the snow is millimeters if the snow percip is in centimeters (if it is then your units in response are wrong) the problem actually worsen and the gap between the numbers is higher.
-
@nikarayanpouya
1 cm of snow gives 1 mm of water equivalent. -
@idefix37 just examine the example
@nikarayanpouya said in Precip Fields In Premium Point Forecast API:
past3hprecip-surface:
0.09900332346567701,
0.05548012329477785,
0,
past3hsnowprecip-surface:
0.10043405865657022,
0.051026981414225226,
0,
past3hconvprecip-surface:
0,
0.05032975859858755,
0,even with your explanations these three percips doesnt make sense or your missing some important explantions
-
-
@nikarayanpouya
Sorry, I’m not an API user. I can’t really help you with the code. I don’t know what are the units of the figures you show. -
I have diligently followed all your instructions and provided every part of the request as requested.
However, it is with great disappointment and concern that I express my frustration over the prolonged delay in addressing the issue at hand. It has been almost two months since I initially reached out, and there has been little to no progress in resolving the problem. What is even more disheartening is the lack of clarity on whether there is indeed a problem to begin with.
As someone who invested in the premium version, this extended timeframe is unacceptable and has left me feeling let down by the level of service provided. I had hoped for a more efficient resolution process.
I kindly request that you give this matter the attention it deserves and expedite the necessary actions to rectify the situation. The current circumstances have significantly impacted my experience as a customer, and I trust that you will take the appropriate measures to restore my faith in your service.
I would greatly appreciate regular updates on the progress made and a clear timeline for when I can expect a resolution. Transparency and open communication are essential in situations like these, and I believe it is crucial for all parties involved.
Thank you for your understanding and attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and a resolution that addresses the issue at hand.
Sincerely,
[Your Forum Username]
-
@nikarayanpouya
You must know that Administrators and Developers are on the community forum only at office hours CET, not during the week end. -
@idefix37 that justify the 2 month timespan for just idenifing a problem
-
@nikarayanpouya specially when I'm being charged for every minute using your API in premium.
-
@nikarayanpouya
I’m just a Windy user as you are. So don’t start this type of discussion with me. I was just trying to help you ! -
@idefix37 im sorry but im just frustrated with the admins not paying attention and just ignoring the problem while im here showing wrong data in my website due to this problem.
-
@nikarayanpouya Hi, I am sorry about the delay in the reply. Can you please describe what you image under term convPrecip?
-
@Suty hi actually i dont know what the term exactly mean but i know that as you send the picture earlier it concludes snow and conv percip but as you see in the numbers you are giving me snow percip is higher than these both.
-
@Suty I also examined some other sample and problem occurs frequently in your data and its not a one time error (for the record the problem is : the number for snowpercip is larger than convpercip and percip)
-
@nikarayanpouya Hi, once again, I had discussion with colleagues and the problem is caused by the fact that @idefix37 mentioned. snowprecip is calculated as snow column, but the precipitation contains this value from water column. So the snowPrecip is contained in total precipitation, but in the different form.
-
Hi @nikarayanpouya, may I ask which model are you using? I would like to examine your issue more the make sure the data you are receiving are correct. Our documentation notes that both
past3hprecip-surfaceandpast3hsnowprecip-surfaceshould be returned as water column equivalent.edit: Also, which areas do you see discrepancies at? Everywhere? I briefly checked Alps in
icon-euandgfsand so far I haven't found anything wrong (snow precip always below or equal total precip) -
@Filip_K Yes , I examined some other sample and problem occurs frequently in your data and its not a one time error. im using the gfs model.
-
@nikarayanpouya
you are right, I was able to replicate the issue withGFSmodel. Same issue most likely happens with other NOAA models (nam*) because these models don't provide snow precipitation directly but it is instead computed from total precipitation accumulation and categorical snow.
I will look more into this and try to improve the computed results, as it doesn't make much sense now.
