RE: usability of RCM

• To: "'Robert Mullenax'" <rmullenax@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: RE: usability of RCM
• From: "Dan Vietor" <devo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:14:56 -0500

> I was just wondering if the RCM files that come over NOAAPORT
> are edited or QC'ed in anyway. The TLH radar is obviously in
> test mode or is not functioning properly yet the RCM transmitted
> reports a TVS..which is definitely not real.  I would like to
> use the RCM data as if it were good enough to be operational,
> but is it good enough?

Good question.  From my experience, it doesn't appear there is much QC
on the RCM.  These come directly from the RPG and experience AP and test
mode problems just like regular NIDS products.  Luckily, since RCM
products are low resolution and the low end cutoff is 20 Dbz, AP
problems are not as extreme as you'd see from product 19.  I use RCM
because there aren't the restrictions on it as there are with high
resolution mosaics.  Its the poor man's mosaic.

> The REDBOOK graphics radar summary (labels) looks atrocious as
> it is way too cluttered to read most of the time.

Oh, you're being TOO kind.  The mosaic portion of the Redbook graphic is
barely usable.  The echo regions are too large and sometimes don't match
real precipitation, even when comparing it to an MDR plot or even the
Difax chart its suppose to be mimicking.

I've created replacements for the Difax radar summary chart. I use the
Redbook annotations on top of a MDR or RCM mosaic (you can use the RCM
GRIB product).  If you get the right font, it does produce a fairly
decent radar summary chart.

________________________________________________________
Daniel Vietor               Mail: devo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unisys Corp                 Title: Engineer/Meteorologist
221 Gale Lane               Phone: 610-925-5206
Kennett Square PA 19348     Fax: 610-925-5215

• References:
  • usability of RCM
    • From: Robert Mullenax