# Towards a Real-Time Description of the Ionosphere:
## 6 Conclusion  
Figure 37: Same as Figure 25 but for Thule.  
Figure 38: Same as Figure 37 but for MSA level.  
Figure 25-27 show that at Jicamarca, for the three considered solar activity levels, IRTAM presents lower values of _Res. Mean_, _RMSE_, and _NRMSE_ than IRI, which means that IRTAM improves the IRI _ImmF2_ modeling in terms of both accuracy and precision. This improvement is observed mostly around sunrise and post-sunet hours. Moreover, IRTAM reduces the error made by IRI in the _ImmF2_ modeling around noon in summer.  
Figure 39: Same as Figure 37 but for HSA level.  
Figures 28-30 show that at Ascension Island, for the three considered solar activity levels, the IRI _Imit_F2 modeling accuracy is improved by IRTAM especially during nighttime hours. Overall, for LSA, the _Imit_F2 modeling precision of IRI and IRTAM can be considered equivalent during pre-sunrise and daytime hours, since the _RMSE_ and _NRMSE_ grids at these hours show similar patterns. IRI instead shows a better output during post-sunset hours. For MSA and HSA, concerning the modeling precision, a better performance of IRI is observed during pre-sunrise hours.  
Figures 31-33 show that overall at Rome, for the three considered solar activity levels, IRTAM improves the IRI modeling accuracy, in particular for sunrise and daytime hours in summer. Concerning the modeling precision, both models are somewhat equivalent independently of solar activity. Nonetheless, a slight improvement made by IRTAM is found during the central hours of the day for summer months.  
Figures 34-36 show that at Sondrestrom, for LSA and MSA, the IRI _Imit_F2 modeling accuracy during post-sunset hours is remarkably improved by IRTAM, in particular for winter and equinoctial months. Nevertheless, a worsening of IRTAM performance is observed during pre-sunrise hours in winter. For HSA, a drop of the _Imit_F2 modeling accuracy is observed from the IRTAM side during daytime hours in summer. For LSA and MSA, _RMSE_ and _NRMSE_ grids show very similar patterns, thus indicating that the precision with which IRI and IRTAM model _Imit_F2 is on the whole comparable. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that a clear improvement when passing from IRI to IRTAM is observed during post-sunset hours in winter.  
Figures 37-39 show that at Thule, for the three considered solar activity levels, a considerable improvement in the _Imit_F2 modeling accuracy is achieved by IRTAM during the whole day especially in winter and equinoctial months. Overall, _RMSE_ and _NRMSE_ grids show that IRTAM improves the _Imit_F2 modeling precision, independently of solar activity. In particular, the improvement is appreciated during the whole day in winter and during daytime hours in summer.  
From a visual examination of _Imit_F2 grids achieved for the three solar activity ranges, some generic conclusions on how the IRI and IRTAM performances depend on solar activity can be drawn: no clear _Res. Mean_ trend related to the solar activity for both IRI and IRTAM is found; neither IRI nor IRTAM show a clear _RMSE_ trend related to the solar activity; for both models, a decreasing _NRMSE_ trend is observed as the solar activity increases.