@idefix37 - (For those reading this old topic. :) Fronts on regular NWS surface analysis maps are MOST CERTAINLY done by computers, not meteorologists. Likewise, Accuweather stopped using manual analyses. The change in the NWS policy was done many years ago. I remember, as I was an active forecaster at the time. The quality of the surface analysis maps plummeted. Symbols for High and Low were computer-generated as well. The symbols were put all over the map and sometimes right on top of each other - really useless. The fronts were at times helpful, but sometimes poorly placed (I think nonsensical errors are quite rare now). The automated maps are not as helpful as hand-drawn fronts, especially when fronts had kinks or discontinuities. If you look at the NWS maps coming out of the WPC, it is apparent that someone at the WPC has an approval responsibility and their name goes in the legend. However, if you look at the product, it is CLEARLY automated. Perhaps the NWS allows for map tweaking, but certainly the primary products are automated. Eventually, AI will do this better than humans, but for now I don't know if that has been achieved yet. Work on this requires money and fronts are more for layman consumption or forecast conceptualization rather than forecast accuracy.

It boggles my mind how Windy has chosen to display the radar. Other websites are faithfully showing the snow over my area. I NEED to see this snow to make some important plans. I pay Windy MONEY so I can use weather data to make my plans. I have been watching significant snow fall over my area for hours. It is measurably accumulating on the ground and it affects transportation. I want to estimate when it ends. According to Windy radar, there has never BEEN any snow! This is really getting to me. Not only has Windy known about this problem but they have communicated NO reason for deciding to display different radar signatures than other common websites. Would you please either (1) put forward a reason your affected readers should be paying you to make the decisions you've made about displaying radar, or (2) display the radar signatures that most people consider worth displaying. I don't know if you apply filters to remove weak signals you don't consider interesting, but CLEARLY the radar sites are providing radar data and you are literally NOT showing that data to paying customers. And you do this in silent fiat, not even showing concern about the issue. Please fix this issue. Most people use weather sites with the hope of seeing radar and satellite data llayered on top of each other. Windy does not offer that. However, you don't even provide a single layer of radar data that shows measurable, accumulating precipitation. Do something. I see no need to pay for essentially incorrect data I can get elsewhere for free. >:-[

@idefix37 - It is a big enough deal for someone to take the time to write your about it. Maybe you should not be in customer service. I swear on my grandmother's sweet soul, I have rarely seen in my fairly long life a company that takes such an aggressive, contentious attitude with its customers in your "feedback" section. It is not just this comment you made. It is so many others. Why don't you go to other company websites and see how often they denigrate customers or try to contradict their personal experience.

If the HRRR is not working for you, that is unfortunate. You seem to think the Euro model works. Use it if it works. I know in my area (northeast coast US), easterly winds can create low clouds, drizzle and rain that the models poorly handle. I suspect the ECMWF model does a better job with that, but I never do a proper study to determine that.

As for why the HRRR might not work in your locale, one explanation could be that you're not likely seeing the advantage of the HRRR's 3km top resolution. That resolution does not cover central Canada. In fact, HRRR's 3-km grid does not include a vast majority of Canada! Central Canada is in the 13km domain, and that might help to explain things. Also, inaccuracies might further arise possibly due to the complex interpolations required across and near-to the boundaries between the 13km and 3 km domains.

Another issue is that your forecast accuracy might also be affected by the proximity of the overall model boundary to your location. Furthermore, good satellite data for your area might also be lacking, since central Canadian weather often is affected by nearby polar areas lacking suitable coverage by continuously-overhead (geostationary) satellites (e.g. GOES).

Here are links to a NOAA source describing the model.
https://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/
I suggest you go about 10 lines down from top of main page section, to find a link related to the latest version HRRRv4. (Link leads to a PDF download):
http://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/pdf/Alexander_AMS_NWP_2020.pdf
The PDF has a map of the HRRR domains as well as other information.

@cswarm34 - Thanks for that perspective. However, I don't want BAD data. WIndy's data is not just "smoothed" in a conventional way, it is SUPPRESSED. I have worked with raw radar data. That kind of imagery would be what I expect when ground clutter is removed by only showing higher angle radar returns, then adding smoothing.

Smoothing refers to tamping down gradients, so sudden changes in a signal are reduced. Windy's radar source eliminates whole areas of precip the size of small states! That goes well beyond conventional smoothing. They seem to be using a simple filter whereby some signals are completely ignored, not just smoothed.

Also, despite what you've said about me, I am not looking for JUST radar. However, I certainly do not want seemingly arbitrarily filtered data (with the net effect it is missing). Windy STILL has not given an explanation as to why their radar source sucks eggs. To what purpose is Windy's source opting to filter out actual precipitation? The other day people in Pennsylvania died in a snow squall on the highway. I had snow squalls around me as well. When it comes to shallow convection snow squalls, Windy's radar source often presents the image akin to negligible virga, not something that obstructs visibility and even affects vehicle braking.

Why does Windy find that acceptable? Windy won't even engage in that conversation. THAT is COMPLETELY unacceptable to for me to be coming from a service that presents itself as trying to please its customers. Few things annoy me off in life like a person who refuses to even give a reason for their choices that are negatively affecting people. If they can't give a reason, is there an emotional problem where they can't discuss the issue because of some prior trauma in their lives regarding accurate radar? I doubt it. So why? Seriously, how the heck can Windy's team not discuss WHY their source is filtering out data (not smoothing). Thanks, again, though, for at least engaging honestly. Windy seems quite unwilling to even do that. :-b

Seeing as you didn't get a complete answer, you could contact the Thai Met service. You might get an answer. If you don't, it's no harm to you. Ask them if they know why this happens. You might no answer, a clear answer, or varying levels of speculation about different possible reasons.

@korina - You are passing the buck. If huge swaths of significant precipitation are missed by your radar provider, then YOUR website is still failing to show useful radar data. Get a new radar feed! I would rather have a complete feed from an old WSR-57 than the highly limited data you are passing on. Get a new radar feed, regardless of the provider.

@idefix37 - I can't find an explanation of the meteogram. There are not many components to the meteogram. I would think writing a full explanation would be easy enough. I think paying customers deserve an explanation of what they paid to look at? I won't comprehend better by guessing. A link to an existing meteogram description or writing it for the first time would be nice. The lack of instructions, inability to have multiple overlays, dependence on cleared cookies and other features are not really lining up with my expectations. :-(

@goatsrslow - Since the icons are still being used, perhaps consider the goat to be a gazelle. Maybe that's what it is!

@David-Polášek-3 - Thanks!

Seeing as you didn't get a complete answer, you could contact the Thai Met service. You might get an answer. If you don't, it's no harm to you. Ask them if they know why this happens. You might no answer, a clear answer, or varying levels of speculation about different possible reasons.

If the HRRR is not working for you, that is unfortunate. You seem to think the Euro model works. Use it if it works. I know in my area (northeast coast US), easterly winds can create low clouds, drizzle and rain that the models poorly handle. I suspect the ECMWF model does a better job with that, but I never do a proper study to determine that.

As for why the HRRR might not work in your locale, one explanation could be that you're not likely seeing the advantage of the HRRR's 3km top resolution. That resolution does not cover central Canada. In fact, HRRR's 3-km grid does not include a vast majority of Canada! Central Canada is in the 13km domain, and that might help to explain things. Also, inaccuracies might further arise possibly due to the complex interpolations required across and near-to the boundaries between the 13km and 3 km domains.

Another issue is that your forecast accuracy might also be affected by the proximity of the overall model boundary to your location. Furthermore, good satellite data for your area might also be lacking, since central Canadian weather often is affected by nearby polar areas lacking suitable coverage by continuously-overhead (geostationary) satellites (e.g. GOES).

Here are links to a NOAA source describing the model.
https://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/hrrr/
I suggest you go about 10 lines down from top of main page section, to find a link related to the latest version HRRRv4. (Link leads to a PDF download):
http://rapidrefresh.noaa.gov/pdf/Alexander_AMS_NWP_2020.pdf
The PDF has a map of the HRRR domains as well as other information.

@SimonUrbanek - Do you not see how a customer said s/he/them sees this screen over and over, "hundreds" of times, and the moderator response was "it's no big deal"?! And then you go ahead and ignore that and instead do the gaslight pivot by talking about how happy customers are. I don't think any customers are happy when they have to see such a screen hundreds of times or when they get dismissed with the comment that it is "no big deal". And I certainly don't appreciate someone responding to my comment with 1984 double-speak by wholly ignoring my point and just saying the customers are happy. I stood up for your customer. You might also think about doing that rather than doubling on down on double-plus-good happy talk. If you ever choose to do that, then you will find everybody wins.

@idefix37 - It is a big enough deal for someone to take the time to write your about it. Maybe you should not be in customer service. I swear on my grandmother's sweet soul, I have rarely seen in my fairly long life a company that takes such an aggressive, contentious attitude with its customers in your "feedback" section. It is not just this comment you made. It is so many others. Why don't you go to other company websites and see how often they denigrate customers or try to contradict their personal experience.

I can't find the new tropical layer that you proudly mention as one of your new features. It would be great if each new feature included a link to a map or page that shows that feature. However, I see no such links. While I can find the new wet bulb layer, I have no idea how to find tropical layer (if it exists) or any tropical page (if that is what exists). I tried your search function, but that seems to offer no guidance either.Can someone can guide me to the tropical layer/page?

Radar and satellite views stopped working on 4/18/2022. I never had a problem with them before. Now Windy pops up a message telling me those features were repeatedly failing. Oh, really? Since when? I have certainly complained - and justifiably so - about Windy's lousy data when it comes to snow or light precip. I've had a driveway covered in snow and Windy says nothing is happening within 30 miles or more! But this is different. The whole map won't work. Now, my browser (FF v99.0.1) certainly didn't update or change from yesterday morning to within the last few hours but Windy functionality did. Can someone please explain if there is any deterministic behavior taking place here, or does Windy just randomly stop working for no apparent reason? Thanks to anyone who genuinely offers useful comment, not those who put this on the browser that has not updated or changed and still works with ALL other websites I visit.

@cswarm34 - Thanks for that perspective. However, I don't want BAD data. WIndy's data is not just "smoothed" in a conventional way, it is SUPPRESSED. I have worked with raw radar data. That kind of imagery would be what I expect when ground clutter is removed by only showing higher angle radar returns, then adding smoothing.

Smoothing refers to tamping down gradients, so sudden changes in a signal are reduced. Windy's radar source eliminates whole areas of precip the size of small states! That goes well beyond conventional smoothing. They seem to be using a simple filter whereby some signals are completely ignored, not just smoothed.

Also, despite what you've said about me, I am not looking for JUST radar. However, I certainly do not want seemingly arbitrarily filtered data (with the net effect it is missing). Windy STILL has not given an explanation as to why their radar source sucks eggs. To what purpose is Windy's source opting to filter out actual precipitation? The other day people in Pennsylvania died in a snow squall on the highway. I had snow squalls around me as well. When it comes to shallow convection snow squalls, Windy's radar source often presents the image akin to negligible virga, not something that obstructs visibility and even affects vehicle braking.

Why does Windy find that acceptable? Windy won't even engage in that conversation. THAT is COMPLETELY unacceptable to for me to be coming from a service that presents itself as trying to please its customers. Few things annoy me off in life like a person who refuses to even give a reason for their choices that are negatively affecting people. If they can't give a reason, is there an emotional problem where they can't discuss the issue because of some prior trauma in their lives regarding accurate radar? I doubt it. So why? Seriously, how the heck can Windy's team not discuss WHY their source is filtering out data (not smoothing). Thanks, again, though, for at least engaging honestly. Windy seems quite unwilling to even do that. :-b

@cswarm34 - I have seen cars sold that have more features than others but they were recalled because they presented a safety risk. I am glad you don't write the government recall rules. You would be standing up for t he those companies who shaft customers with poor performance. As for some any person needing smoothness, usually smoothness is necessary for getting modelling of data to work for prediction or feature highlighting. I doubt many users are putting Windy data through feature analysis or modelling. Most people in the whole world, not just Windy customers, want to know WHERE IS IT PRECIPITATING, HOW MUCH, AND WHAT KIND OF PRECIPITATION. Try polling people and ask if they want to know such things. As a former meteorologist who did both public and military forecasts and was surrounded by others doing the same (including publicly recognizable people), I assure you one of the most frequent concerns of customers surrounded precipitation. Prioritizing some "pretty picture" smoothing over letting customers where the precipitation is located is a terrible prioritization choice.

@korina - I answered your question now. Your old question was basically, "Don't expect us to do our job, keep working for us for free to do Windy QC for us." You can read that reply. It is quite easy to go to other websites and compare data. Find the situations when common radar resources for the public show one general picture and you show another "story". I have cancelled. I am paid through December, so unless you would be decent enough to send me a pro-rated refund, I will be commenting until then.