RadarScope vs GR LevelX - resolution etc

[ChristofferB]

The last week I have been trying to get a good Weather Radar-software and since I use a Mac (and don't wan't to "Windows boot") I decided to go for RadarScope which I heard was supposed to be the best. After a lot of struggle to actually be able to buy it I was kind of disappointed it wasn't much better than most apps I have on my iPad. I was expecting much smoother radar lines like this (I believe it is GR Level):



but it looks more like this:



I also bought the $10 AllisonHouse subscription thinking it contained enhanced radar resolution but there was no real difference. Or does the $25 subscription with Level 3 have better resolution, perhaps?

So, to my question. Is the first one just "artificially smoothed out" or does it really have much better resolution? Level3? Is it possible to get a filter or something like that to smooth out the radar images this way on RadarScope, as far as you know?

 

[Marcus Diaz]

Smoothing is not really higher res. Its just there to make the radar look better and some people prefer it. I'd much rather have non-smoothed when I'm looking at a high res radar. About the only time I turn on smoothing is when I'm waiting for initiation. As for your first question, level 3 is level 3 no matter what program you use. There's no app or program that will give you higher res radar data, but it can smooth it out making it look cleaner.

Also idk if you've looked into it, but PYKL3 is a great radar program for mobile.

 

[ChristofferB]

Thanks for the response. So, does one need Level 3 in order to get that smooth look? Or is that an option that is valid just for GR LevelX? I can't find any setting like that for RadarScope.

 

[Rob H]

I actually like your radarscope image better (I'll explain why below). Marcus pretty much nailed it, but apps fall into the following categories:

1) Display radar images that some other place rasterized and uploaded. Data is lost, the images aren't efficient to transmit, and radar updates are slower to reach the user. This is 95% of apps, especially on mobile.

2) Take Level 3 NEXRAD radar data and rasterize the image locally on the device. This is GrLevel3, RadarScope, Pykl3, WCT, and maybe one or two others. This is working with the real data. L3 data is small enough that it's the preferred data to use while chasing mobile. NOAA has a free feed, but this routinely gets overwhelmed on MOD/HIGH risk days. Allison House, Caprock, and a few other places sell this data. If you're chasing, you pretty much need to purchase one of these 3rd party feeds.

3) Take Level 2 NEXRAD radar data and rasterize the image locally on the device. This is GrLevel2, WCT, and Skip Talbot's animations. Level 2 scans are much more high resolution, but the files are much larger. It's not really practical to chase with it because of the size and the minimal benefit you get from the enhanced resolution. An NWS WCM probably wants L2 data because it's the best thing they have available, but when you're out there chasing, the actual sky has an infinite resolution

Some of these programs allow you to apply a graphical smoothing effect. Some people like this effect, but it isn't a meteorological algorithm, it's just the operating system's graphics libraries smoothing out jagged edges. Some people prefer this, many do not. It's translating your data away from its "pure" state and may cause you to infer or focus on features that don't really exist.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I no longer use a laptop for "in the vehicle" chasing. It takes up too much room, can crash and it's a deadly object if you roll the vehicle or if it's poorly placed and the airbag launches it.

I use three radar apps on my iPad. Storm Spotter because it has a detailed mapping program in the background if needed. Radar Scope with Allison House data and Weather Wall. Weather Wall is great because it will allow you to split the screen so you can view too sets of radar data, e.g., base reflectivity on one side and velocity products on the other side. I also use a Garmin 510 (via satellite data) to receive radar as a back-up since most chaser-convergence days results in throttled or no wireless data. Having no radar on big days is no fun especially after dark. In fact, I don't know how we all survived back in the day w/o radar.

As others have noted "smoothed" radar has no meteorological advantage.

W.

 

[Andrea Griffa]

Warren, I've never heard about Garmin 510 as a back up for connection for radar. Do you mean you could have internet connection via sat if normal connection was down?

I no longer use a laptop for "in the vehicle" chasing. It takes up too much room, can crash and it's a deadly object if you roll the vehicle or if it's poorly placed and the airbag launches it.

I use three radar apps on my iPad. Storm Spotter because it has a detailed mapping program in the background if needed. Radar Scope with Allison House data and Weather Wall. Weather Wall is great because it will allow you to split the screen so you can view too sets of radar data, e.g., base reflectivity on one side and velocity products on the other side. I also use a Garmin 510 (via satellite data) to receive radar as a back-up since most chaser-convergence days results in throttled or no wireless data. Having no radar on big days is no fun especially after dark. In fact, I don't know how we all survived back in the day w/o radar.

As others have noted "smoothed" radar has no meteorological advantage.

W.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Warren, I've never heard about Garmin 510 as a back up for connection for radar. Do you mean you could have internet connection via sat if normal connection was down?

Hi Andrea:

The Garmin Aera 510 is an aviation unit that also has the NT-America detailed ground mapping mode with radar overlay. Very few Garmin's offer that option anymore. The data is derived from a satellite signal, not wireless. It's base reflectivity only, but who cares when you need it. (It also has surface data). You can find used units on auction sites. I use the aviation light package which is around $29.00 a month with a $75.00 activation fee. The other option is to use WXWorx with a tablet PC computer, but you need a bigger budget. You can find used WxWorx systems, but the newer ones have a nice GPS interface.

Satellite derived radar data is a life saver. I can think of several situations of late, including the El Reno event last year when having a back-up system was critical when wireless data was useless.

W.

 

[Andrea Griffa]

Wow Warren it looks great! Too bad it's 900 dollars. It's very small to use and I suppose it allows to navigate while looking at the radar! It seems fantastic for a back up if connection is out as you said before. Many thanks for this suggestion.

Hi Andrea:

The Garmin Aera 510 is an aviation unit that also has the NT-America detailed ground mapping mode with radar overlay. Very few Garmin's offer that option anymore. The data is derived from a satellite signal, not wireless. It's base reflectivity only, but who cares when you need it. (It also has surface data). You can find used units on auction sites. I use the aviation light package which is around $29.00 a month with a $75.00 activation fee. The other option is to use WXWorx with a tablet PC computer, but you need a bigger budget. You can find used WxWorx systems, but the newer ones have a nice GPS interface.

Satellite derived radar data is a life saver. I can think of several situations of late, including the El Reno event last year when having a back-up system was critical when wireless data was useless.

W.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Thanks for the response. So, does one need Level 3 in order to get that smooth look? Or is that an option that is valid just for GR LevelX? I can't find any setting like that for RadarScope.

You can smooth any radar data. This is a graphics/drawing option of the software and not part of the radar data itself. GrLevelX (both 2 and 3) smooths if enabled, and any phone or tablet app is capable of doing the same (although many seem to be missing this capability).

Level 3 and Level 2 refer to the resolution of the data, how many pixels it has. Level 2 is higher resolution than level 3 (which may seem counter intuitive).

RadarScope is actually higher resolution than GrLevel3 because it's using a compressed form of the Level 2 data for it's base reflectivity scans. GrLevel2 gets you the higher resolution scans over GrLevel3, but it eats a lot more bandwidth, which makes it challenging to use in areas with weak connectivity.

As others have said, smoothing just presents the same data in a different way. The actual data it's presenting hasn't changed. I prefer it sometimes because it makes some of the shapes, such as the subtle hooks of a mesovortex on the leading edge of a QLCS, easier to see. Unsmoothed these small features sometimes just look like noisy pixels. Other times, however, fine details may appears to get "smoothed out" and you may overlook them when looking at the smoothed data.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Wow Warren it looks great! Too bad it's 900 dollars. It's very small to use and I suppose it allows to navigate while looking at the radar! It seems fantastic for a back up if connection is out as you said before. Many thanks for this suggestion.

You can find used ones for a lot less. I've seen them listed for under $500.00.

-------

Here is a copy of my Facebook posting re: Satellite radar data:

Satellite-derived radar options for chasers, spotters and EMS personnel.

It’s hard to explain to people who don’t need live radar just how important it is. This was true on May 31, 2013 when a violent tornado ripped through El Reno, Oklahoma. Many wireless data systems were overloaded. This posed a serious and life threatening situation for many chasers, spotters and EMS personnel.

While actively pursuing severe weather, relying exclusively on wireless data is foolhardy. In remote areas, a wireless signal is often non-existent and during active severe weather events, data is usually throttled useless due to overloaded bandwidth.

Unlike wireless coverage, satellite data can be received 24 hours a data from anywhere in the US as along as you have an unobstructed view of the sky, a receiver and a data plan.

There are currently no satellite-derived radar systems or apps for wireless devices, although several are reported to be in the works. Some satellite "Internet" systems do exist for iPads, iPhones and Android, but the pricing is beyond crazy for data and the equipment / interface would be prohibitive, especially in a vehicle.

There are several options for receiving satellite-derived radar in your vehicle.

1: Garmin® stand alone units. Many people prefer small self-contained GPS units to PC based systems. The main advantage of a self-contained GPS unit is obvious. It's compact, less expensive and has fewer individual parts. The Baron® Threat Net® system requires a PC laptop or tablet. Older Garmin units, like the 378, 496 and the 478 are discontinued, but do offer ground radar via XM. A couple of the Garmin Aera aviation units also offer ground radar, including the 510 (which I use) and the 560. (Beware, not all Aera units have the XM radar option). The Aera's are a wiser choice over the discontinued units since they are newer, touch screen, still serviced and allow easy map uploading. Data plans can be added to the Garmin units starting at $29.99 a month. The nice thing about stand lone units is that they can be moved quickly between vehicles and take up less room when traveling via aircraft. The bad thing about Garmin is customer service. Despite multiple attempts to contact customer service and their media department for information, they never returned my inquiries.

2: If you have a super-sized chase budget, then the Mobile Threat Net® is for you. Although I’ve never used the system, I’ve seen excellent reviews and many chasers, EMS crews and spotters use the system.

The hardware, software and Bluetooth unit is currently priced around $1,173.00. A data plan, like the “Responder Package†is priced at $99.99 per month, plus a $100.00 activation fee. A less expensive “Master Mariner†plan is available for $49.00 per month with a $50.00 activation fee. In addition to the hardware you will need a laptop, or better yet, a tablet computer. This means a chaser or spotter will need to invest over $1,500 if activated for three months with the advanced data plan. Baron's customer service via Cliff is fantastic.

To learn more about Baron’s Threat Net® system, contact:

Cliff Windham
Manager, Public Safety Solutions
Baron Services-Weather Solutions
Office: 256-881-8811
[email protected]
Cell: 256-683-3555

Please note this post is informative in nature and is not an endorsement or promotion of any brand or services by me.

Warren

 

[Rob H]

I've personally had nothing but problems with ThreatNet, so YMMV. I missed the Wadena EF-4 because I was too busy trying to fix ThreatNet, and I almost got ran over by the Wakita EF-3 because I was chasing a 60mph storm blind and again, trying to get ThreatNet back up and running instead of paying attention to the storm. It did not handle things like gas station canopies or the GPS coming unplugged gracefully at all.

For a tour operator, EMS, or whatever it's probably a no brainer backup solution but most chasers can probably do without it. If they still have shear markers and composite radar instead of BR/BV/SRV that's another thing I had a problem with. The very few times I've been without data I just looked at the storm. Radar doesn't help much when you're underneath the meso anyways.

 

[Skip Talbot]

While actively pursuing severe weather, relying exclusively on wireless data is foolhardy.

And so is relying on satellite data. Warren has been chasing a lot longer than I have, but I'd argue that the only things you should be relying on for your safety are your eyes. If you don't have visual situational awareness, you should not be there. El Reno is a great example. That tornado turned left in between radar scans. If you were relying on radar data for your safety, you could have been put in a life threatening situation. Many were. A chaser eastbound on I-40 assumed the tornado was still off to his south based on the radar, when it had turned hard left, moved into the FFD, and he drove into the back of it.

Satellite radar is prone to its own flaws. The storm can actually obstruct your view of the satellite causing your data to go down. Chasers have reported the data being heavily delayed, sometimes more than an hour, and the XM software has bugs. The satellite radar graphics are even lower resolution than level 3, making them less than ideal. The aging technology just doesn't have the bandwidth to send high resolution radar imagery. Combined with the cost of the system, many chasers are now using it only as a backup if they have the money, or just ditching it entirely for cell data given the widespread coverage of high speed data now available on the plains.

 

[ChristofferB]

You can smooth any radar data. This is a graphics/drawing option of the software and not part of the radar data itself. GrLevelX (both 2 and 3) smooths if enabled, and any phone or tablet app is capable of doing the same (although many seem to be missing this capability).

Level 3 and Level 2 refer to the resolution of the data, how many pixels it has. Level 2 is higher resolution than level 3 (which may seem counter intuitive).

RadarScope is actually higher resolution than GrLevel3 because it's using a compressed form of the Level 2 data for it's base reflectivity scans. GrLevel2 gets you the higher resolution scans over GrLevel3, but it eats a lot more bandwidth, which makes it challenging to use in areas with weak connectivity.

As others have said, smoothing just presents the same data in a different way. The actual data it's presenting hasn't changed. I prefer it sometimes because it makes some of the shapes, such as the subtle hooks of a mesovortex on the leading edge of a QLCS, easier to see. Unsmoothed these small features sometimes just look like noisy pixels. Other times, however, fine details may appears to get "smoothed out" and you may overlook them when looking at the smoothed data.

Thanks for the clarification. I have looked around and it seems RadarScope does not have that smoothing option (correct me if I'm wrong). I understand well that it creates a "semi-fake" image but I agree with you, that sometimes it would make the image easier to read.

So, my first picture (the photo of the laptop), that is obviously using some smoothing mechanism right? Also, if I have AllisonHouse connected to RadarScope I should be able to get the reports of rotation, hail, tornados and other spotted data, is that correct?

 

[Warren Faidley]

And so is relying on satellite data. Warren has been chasing a lot longer than I have, but I'd argue that the only things you should be relying on for your safety are your eyes. If you don't have visual situational awareness, you should not be there. El Reno is a great example. That tornado turned left in between radar scans. If you were relying on radar data for your safety, you could have been put in a life threatening situation. Many were. A chaser eastbound on I-40 assumed the tornado was still off to his south based on the radar, when it had turned hard left, moved into the FFD, and he drove into the back of it.

Satellite radar is prone to its own flaws. The storm can actually obstruct your view of the satellite causing your data to go down. Chasers have reported the data being heavily delayed, sometimes more than an hour, and the XM software has bugs. The satellite radar graphics are even lower resolution than level 3, making them less than ideal. The aging technology just doesn't have the bandwidth to send high resolution radar imagery. Combined with the cost of the system, many chasers are now using it only as a backup if they have the money, or just ditching it entirely for cell data given the widespread coverage of high speed data now available on the plains.

Yes, Skip makes some very important points here. This is something I often overlook and take for granted since I've chased in both the non-radar and radar eras. Subconsciously, I use both radar and visual experience when I'm chasing.

Radar can also be very misleading if used exclusively for targeting decisions. For example, a storm can look fantastic on radar and tempt a chaser to take the bait, but without observing the overall meteorology, it could be moving into a less favorable area by the time you get there. In addition, if your radar goes down and you are dependent on it, you better know how to chase by visual means.

And yes, wireless data coverage is getting better near larger cities, but in places like the OK Panhandle or western KS / E. CO, where wireless data is void or 1kb per hour, it's still nice to have satellite-derived data.

Personally, I've only experienced issues with satellite-derived XM data on rare occasions, although data can be delayed as noted -- and don't forget to note the time of the last update -- not that I have done something stupid like that! I've been told XM is improving data delivery since more pilots are using the same system. I still find it to be an important back-up, especially on the higher risk days when you have multiple fast moving cells.

Warren

 

[Brett Roberts]

Thanks for the clarification. I have looked around and it seems RadarScope does not have that smoothing option (correct me if I'm wrong). I understand well that it creates a "semi-fake" image but I agree with you, that sometimes it would make the image easier to read.

That's correct. GRLevel2 and GRLevel3 have nice smoothing algorithms that can actually be worth using on reflectivity, for reasons Skip described well. No other radar software I'm aware of has it. PYKL3 has terrible smoothing that just seems to blur the data (the author is very anti-smoothing), while RadarScope has none at all.

So, my first picture (the photo of the laptop), that is obviously using some smoothing mechanism right? Also, if I have AllisonHouse connected to RadarScope I should be able to get the reports of rotation, hail, tornados and other spotted data, is that correct?

Yes, the first picture you posted shows GRLevel3 with smoothing enabled. If you want that type of imagery, you're going to have to run GRLevel2/3.

Are you sure GRLevel3 can't be run using Parallels on OS X? I'm not a Mac user, so I'm not sure, but I thought some chasers were doing that. I'd look into it, at the very least. RadarScope simply isn't very full-featured; you don't get detailed roads, placefiles, shapefiles, or even some L3 algorithms like hail size. GRLevel3 is the consensus choice for the best radar software among chasers, but there are some alternatives (e.g., StormLab) that are still better than RadarScope. However, they're all native to Windows, so RadarScope may well be the only option that runs natively on OS X.

Even though you said you don't want to, it could be worth dual-booting Windows on your Mac, just for chasing. Not only is GRLevelX a Windows exclusive, but I'm not aware of any major mapping/GPS software that runs natively on OS X, either. Windows is just more practical for chasing, at least right now.