Originally Posted by Paul210
Pretty cool, and looks to be pretty accurate with what I get with the exception of one or two of the analogs.
Which ones? Note there are a couple of the LP's in there which are using proposed facilities detailed in Application to FCC rather than their current facilities. I noted this in my corrections post in the other thread. - In Dayton, W66AQ is one of those.
As I also mentioned in another post on that thread, WRCX-LP is showing signficantly stronger(Yellowish green) at my location than I'm getting from them(which is generally a bit "snowy"/on the weak side), and WWHO looks perhaps a little on the optimistic side as well(awfully hard to say on that one though, as should be the case we're talking about purple or No shading near my location - Given what I get from them I just expected it to be "no shading" for my exact location instead of purple) ...
Another one I didn't mention in that post as I hadn't looked at it yet that is showing significantly stronger for my location than what I'm getting is WPTO 14 ... It's showing Green, but what I get from them is something just less of Grade B signal - Just a bit "snowy" so to speak when leaves are off trees, worse when leaves are on.
Looking at terrain profiles with other, Topo software, I know the path to WPTO is signficantly obstructed by terrain from my location, and the same is probably true for WRCX-LP's lower antenna height(and the same is true for WWHO as well, although it's harder to say as that one is beyond curvature of earth anyway+my software for the elevation profiles doesn't take curvature of earth into account) ...
Looking at other areas and noticing that indeed for the most part you can see where modeling seems to fit well with the terrain(where there are obstructions the colors change to indicate weaker signal/etc) looks "right", It looks like to me its possible that for some of the terrain near my specific location, it might not quite be accurate enough involving the more terrain obstructed signal paths(such as for WPTO).
What I'm seeing for the Other Stations in the area (Including weaker ones such as WKON, W20CL, W36DG, WAVE) however seem to be much more accurate - astoundingly accurate in some cases, and those are in directions where Terrain issues are generally not as severe as is the case for WPTO especially, although it is certianly not LOS, either. But, it's a bit difficult to say, as I'm using antenna (XG91 for UHF)/preamp which is 35FT above ground, whereas these maps are for "ground level"/etc. and don't take antenna gain/etc. into account .. And then, among other things there are all the nearby trees it doesn't account for either ... So, its possible it could still be showing something a little more optimistic than what is the case at my location at "ground level" with no antenna gain/etc overall ....
So, it's just a WAG(which could certianly be wrong), but I'm thinking at this point some of the terrain at my location may be such that it might need more resolution for the terrain data than is being modeled in this case, especially involving the situation for WPTO or WRCX perhaps.
I asked Andy what he thought about it on the other thread, I'll be quite interested to see his reply.
Does anyone know why the satellite view turns blurry to the west of I-75? Just a couple miles east of I-75 you can see a definite division line.
Not sure if this is what you're talking about, but if you zoom way out you'll see it looks like several "sections" of the data just East of 75 have different coloring/etc, as if this data was based on Aerial photos(or from a sat) which were taken on different days with different weather conditions and Sun angles/etc ....
It does I suppose look "blurrier" in a sense at some "zoom" levels especially where "stuff" is more "brighter"(streets/top of buildings/etc) to the West of that "dividing line" between the sections that's a couple miles east of 75.