AROME altitude layers : a survey
-
Please please ! replace Arome1.3 by Arome2.5 (with Altitude) ! 2.5km is already a very nice resolution and, as Samy stated, if the 2.5 output comes from the 1.3 forecast, there is no point in keeping the full resolution at surface and depriving Windy aficionados from the highly reliable Arome forecast above surface ! There's definitely a demand from the community ! Many thanks to the Windy developers!
-
Hello,
Yes please it would be incredible to have altitude layers with Arôme 2,5 instead of 1,3 surface. For the time being, we only can predict our trajectory with the altitude layers of ECMWF, which is not ideal at Day-1 or early morning of the D-Day...
Thanks for Windy anyway ! -
Ok I vote for
-
@ukenfly i vote for it too ! Excellent idea
-
@vicb oui, mais les conditions de surface sont aussi à prendre en compte (petit déco en plaine à basse altitude,on vol pas tous à 3000...😅),il nous faut idéalement le vent au sol et le vent en altitude (meteociel,par ex...)
-
@Silversurfer75 je ne pense pas qu'une grille a 2.5km soit gênante en plaine?
Comme le dit @Samygallego les prévisions sont exactement les mêmes. La seule différence est la résolution de la grille.
Il me semble donc que arome2.5 serait mieux pour tout le monde?
Samy (qui est ingénieur prévisionniste chez MF) pourra sûrement nous éclairer un peu plus. -
Vivement les couches d'altitude avec Arome..., c'est extrêmement important pour les parapentistes,merci pour votre aide !😜
-
@Silversurfer75 Surface layer is also available in AROME2.5, see documentation here :
https://donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr/?fond=produit&id_produit=131&id_rubrique=51In particular the details for packages here :
https://donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr/client/document/descriptiontechnique_paquetsarome_donneespubliques_v2_20240402_367.pdf
(En français : les champs de surface sont aussi présents dans AROME2.5, voir la doc ici :
https://donneespubliques.meteofrance.fr/?fond=produit&id_produit=131&id_rubrique=51En particulier le détail des paquets ici :
-
I need to know altitude wind strength and direction too
-
@Samygallego said in AROME altitude layers : a survey:
Hello the Windy team (and windy community),
first, congratulation and thank you for your work, very appreciated ! This post is not just another post asking for AROME altitude layers, it has been asked many times, see for example the following links for the most recent ones:
https://community.windy.com/topic/27058/arome-model-wind-informations-in-altitude
https://community.windy.com/topic/28241/altitude-winds-with-arome-model-france
https://community.windy.com/topic/32698/arome-suggestion-of-new-layersThe answer from the team is always the same : AROME1.3 is only available at surface, for the altitude Meteo-France gives only AROME2.5.
I would like to be sure that the team and everybody understand AROME1.3 and AROME2.5 are the SAME model (with a grid of 1.3km for calculation), only the output resolution is lowered (but still ok !), probably to save space and reduce data to be downloaded. I think not many people care of having so much precise resolution of 1.3km for visualization, but I am sure french paragliders and gliders pilots (and some of the neighbors, as spanish paragliders) would love to see altitude ! Especially in the Pyrenees where ICON D2 is not available, but also in the Alps for comparison with ICON D2.I have contacted the windy team and they say it is possible to replace AROME1.3 (at surface) by AROME2.5 (with Altitude) but they need to see there is a demand from the community.
I have also contacted Victor, creator of the excellent plugin "better sounding" and he would happily add the AROME model to the list if windy team is adding altitude.
So if you want this change, please make some noise (replying or liking this message) !
Many thanks.
Great, let's have ARÔME 2.5
-
-
Merci Victor pour ce super outils , oui Arome serait un GROS plus.
Par contre meteo-parapente.com n'utilise pas Arome a ma connaissance, mais un dérivé de WRF (mais le futur site de NicolasB. oui par contre: Wetter.aero )
Meteo-Parapente runs it's own NWP model, which have been specifically tuned for soaring.
The resolution is approximately 2.5km for the central zone and 7.5km for the dashed outer zone.The model runs on a HPC supercomputer, just like the ones you find at NASA. (ours is slightly smaller 😉 but we still have a huge electricity bill)
The core of the model is based on a modified version of the WRF-ARW and custom software that have been freely inspired from DrJack's RASP Blipmaps.
The initial and boundary conditions (=input data) comes from the GFS coupled to a lot of others datasets (NOAA, NASA, USGS, Copernicus, DWD, Météo-France...).
-
By the way, Windy already uses AROME 2.5km but in overseas domains.
And not with altitude parameters
-
je vote pour aussi, tres utile!
-
@idefix37 Yes you are right, but remark here this is AROME-OM (Outre-Mer) and the 2.5km is the grid used for calculation (and also for the resolution output). The altitude layers seem to be present.
-
@Samygallego said in AROME altitude layers : a survey:
ut remark here this is AROME-OM (Outre-Mer) and the 2.5km is the grid used for calculation (and also for the resolution output). The altitude layers seem to be present.
Good to know,
I just added AromeReunion and AromeAntilles support to the sounding plugin.
Thanks Samy!It will be released in v3.0.7
-
@Samygallego
Yes, I never noticed that altitude parameters were available ! :)
Of course the domain is different. But when you say that the calculation in France domain is also 1.3km for the 2.5km version, this is not an argument because the final resolution is 2.5km. And this would be the real resolution in Windy.
It is the same with GFS whose computation resolution is ~13km but not for the end user despite some saying so. -
@idefix37 Unless you want to know the temperature and wind of your neighbor living at 1.3km from you, this resolution is useless.
What is important is the grid resolution for calculation because if you want to solve explicitly convection (which AROME does), you need to have several gridpoints on your clouds (which are some km big for Cumulonimbus for example). Otherwise you need parametrisation (which global models do).
Do you see now the importance of grid size for the model vs grid resolution for the visualization ?
-
I vote for as well !
-
I wish that also!
