Here is Weatherscapes latest work. Its our tv ones updated weather grpahics as of Saturday. Its bascially just an update of what they had before. The hovers are probably the best part of the look, with a more realistic look and flying right down to the city at the same time doing a 360 degree turn.
I don't know if anyone else noticed the BBC's new method for showing fog as demonstrated by Rob McElwee a few days ago. The presenter now points to the foggy area and tells us it will be foggy. No fuzzy fog symbol, no white shading, no 'FOG' lettering, not even Ian McCaskill's famous 'GOF'.
Having got more accustomed to the new forecasts now, I think the fundamental problem is that all they are is a glorified rainfall forecast. We had rainfall charts before (albeit not 3D), and they had their place
within
a larger forecast, but to ditch virtually everything else is just nonsense. Had the new graphics been used as part of a full forecast just to show rainfall, I can imagine reaction would have been more positive.
One day last week I was planning on a day out in the countryside. The forecast showed that it would be dry, and to be fair it was. Unfortunately there was no mention of the fact the wind was almost unbearably strong. Yes, there are wind charts, but because the focus of the forecast is the 3D rainfall chart, on the day in question they didn't bother with them. Plus, when they do get a look-in, they're skirted over in next to no time... and you can't see the yellow wind arrows over the brown land if the forecast is on a projector screen.
Indeed, has anybody seen the forecast on BBC World for somewhere like Africa or Asia, somewhere were there isn't any rain forecast?. I can imagine the forecasts will be really interesting, just a brown map with not much happening!
I think they should ditch the temperature squares and replace them with wind symbols with a MPH value and direction. They can show temperature by using different colours instead of the brown.
Just having another look at the New Zealand caps bbcworld2005 posted above, and it actually looks like they're making much better use of the system.
They've integrated weather symbols, pressure charts and summaries along with the 3D rainfall fly-through, rather than just basing the whole forecast around the 3D sequence. If this is the same technology, why does it look so much better than the BBC's version? Oh, and green land - doesn't seem like too much of a hindrance to the forecast does it? I really don't understand why light/dark brown is supposed to show up cloud cover 'shadows' better than light/dark green. Surely it just depends how dark your dark green is, and how light your light green is.
Sorry if this is old news, but Jay 'err' Wynne was using a coloury temperature map last night on News 24 as per the old look. I've not seen this since the new graphics arrived. Good to see it back!
Here is Weatherscapes latest work. Its our tv ones updated weather grpahics as of Saturday. Its bascially just an update of what they had before. The hovers are probably the best part of the look, with a more realistic look and flying right down to the city at the same time doing a 360 degree turn.
That looks a hell of a lot better, and clearer, than the BBC version.
Isobars.
Green land.
Symbols (very reminiscent of the old BBC design if I'm not mistaken...)
Flat overhead maps.
If the Beeb had gone for that "look" with added fly round when appropriate then I'm sure people would have been happier.
I'm fed up being asked where the symbols, understandable wind graphics and isobars have gone...
Much as I hate ITV weather, I'm now more likely to watch it, as it is sourced from the same Met office data, but presented in a much clearer and easily consumed format.
The Beeb look is very clever, but ultimately pretty pointless, as it is no longer clearly understandable. (If a region is entirely sunny or entirely cloudy, you have no idea which is the case, as they are both shades of brown - you only clearly see which is which when both are present...)
Is this your solution to every problem; fire someone?
You have a habit of rashly calling for people's resignations, don't you.
Presumably if we sacked everyone and put you in charge, all would be well.
Yes
(joke)
I haven't been calling for resignations left, right and centre as you suggest.
They've spent £1m of public money.
They didn't test it properly.
They were surprised that people found it confusing and poorly implemented.
They're now spending more money trying to fix it.
How much more money should be wasted before someone stands up and takes responsibility?
And it's not just me- the former editor of the BBC Weather Centre has also been calling for heads to roll. Some choice quotes:
Quote:
It is not so much about graphics; it is wilful disregard for all that we learnt over the past 25 years and the loss of the clear responsibility the BBC has to its license payers.
Quote:
But let me address this need to change. 3-D Fly-through graphics are not new. I saw them over 20 years ago.
Quote:
we would regularly go to the American Meteorological Society annual conference to look for new techniques and ideas. We would watch with awe at the tricks that could be performed; but we always came to same conclusion- is it going to help us tell the weather story. The answer to that never changed- a resounding NO.
Quote:
It was a case of style over content, which was fine for the USA but not for the UK.
Quote:
what we are left with is fly-throughs driven by Met Office Model Output. We all know that the model gets it wrong, both in terms of timing and detail. To base a complete forecast on this is an extraordinarily naive decision
Quote:
to show it in such detail on screen as if it is the gospel is ridiculous.
Quote:
Finally, the project leader and his team responsible for this error of judgement should consider their positions
This guy knows what he's talking about. The people who have followed him into office clearly don't, and they should be made to pay the price.
Though to be honest you have to take his comments with a degree of caution - as there must be an element of "that wouldn't have happened in my day"...
g.dyke