Reason for missing Weather radar?

[Guest PPSFA]

I think you might have missed my point. I dont really care if what I see in FS is exactly what I would see out the window of a 'real' plane or the Weather channel map.What I do care about is that the radar shows what is happening in FS, regardless of whether I'm using 'real world' weather or one of the weather schemes in FS.The simple fact is that the Reality radar painted targets depending on intensity fo the returns, and colored them accordingly. Green for light precip, red for T storms, etc. If it was doable in FS9 I still fail to see why it's not doable now.I havent used it in FSX, maybe I'll go see if it's available.

[mburkhard 23]

Bryan, Jay,you guys have to understand that is it just not possible to have a realistic working WX radar. It was not possible with FS9 and it is not possible with FSX.There's one major reason for that:FS9/FSX does NOT deliver ANY information about precipation the add-on developers could use for a gauge. To develop an accurate WX radar you absolutely need to know where precipation is located because this is what the radar will detect. So how can you programme a system when the primary information the radar would detect is not there?RealityXP and others have tried to "guess" the location of precipation within the simulation using cloud information and I don't know what else. While this may look real to many of you it just isn't. Now you could argue that this is better than nothing. You might have a point here. But PMDG chose to invest the time available developing systems that CAN be done right and realistic. A good example? We'd rather want to have drift-down calculated by the FMS - something NO other airliner ever featured in MSFS. Yes you have to fail an engine to experience this. So go ahead and do it! This is excellent training and learning... However if the MD-11 had a WX radar and you would fly into a red area... you'd quickly realise there's nothing happening at all...Regards,Markus

[Guest PPSFA]

Thanks for the reply Markus.I am not a developer, just a user, so I can't dispute what you are saying. I can only relate my own experiance.Among other things I use FS for, I create videos for a company that does recurrency and safety training for corporate flight depts. As such, I need very specific weather for the videos because we use the NTSB reports and re-create the weather as close as possible for the time of an accident.Due to many reasons, even though I use FSX for 'playtime', I still use FS9 for the videos. I can set the weather very accuratly including fog, T storms, etc. When using a plane in FS, that in real life has weather radar, I install the above mentioned addon. To verify the weather is as needed, I can go to external view, observe for example a T storm, go back to the cockpit and see reds, yellows, and greens depicting pretty close to exactly what I see visually.Now granted, the plane may not perform in that weather as it would in real life (of course in real life I wouldnt be flying through a level 5 storm), but visually, the weather and the radar returns are very close. I do have a little experiance with planes and radar, I operated radar for 4 years in military and have been a commercial pilot since 1971.As I said, Im not disputing anything you have said, just my observation that things could be better imho.JayXPPro SP2FSX SP2AMD64 FX-60 Dual Core 2.61 GHz8800GTS-640 megs2 Gigs Kingston RAMFEX-GEX-UTUSA-FSGenesis-and a bunch of other stuffComputer optimized by www.fs-gs.com

[january 19]

Here is a screen shot of the DreamFleet Bonanza ready for takeoff at Stewart BC- in fairly misty weather. Note the Reality weather radar display. Not being a real world pilot, I can't comment on it's accuracy. My impression however, is that within the limitations of FS9, it is a useful piece of cockpit hardware.Alex ReidPS Stewart BC is not an airfield where one treats met info lightly!AMD XP2200 1.8Ghz, 2GB RAM, 2-GeForceFX5200 GPUshttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/194184.jpg

[michal 44]

>the cockpit and see reds, yellows, and greens depicting pretty>close to exactly what I see visually.This is rather strange statement. How can you say the colors you see depict what you see "visually". You have no way judging the internal strength of the storm unless you have radar in your eyes. There could be benign set of storm clouds that would be just "green" on a radar. And like was said before - in real life radar is not for show but has important function - it is used for navigation through (or between the storms) carefully bypassing yellow/red patches. In real life there are real consequences for flying through the red areas (sometimes deadly) - in MSFS there is absolutely no consequence, you might take whatever path you want, go right through even the magenta areas - having such toy "radar" is useless.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[ronzie 21]

I use the Reality-XP WX500 radar in other aircraft along with Active Sky 6.5. I have experienced severe turbulence and vertical drafts when flying close to or through areas outlined in caution or warning colors.It takes a good weather package that can influence such things to make radar returns based on cloud modeling useful.

[kdfw__ 542]

WX radar ain't happening on a PMDG. It's been said before, it ain't gonna change.But realize this is a simulation--make believe, all of it. We're not flying our PMDG aircraft thru weather and we all know that. So what if there's no consequenc of flying thru the red in the radar? It's all make believe, we pretend we're flying, we pretend there's storm cell w/ heavy precipation which may cause a flameout.PSS and RXP WX radar are not accurate, but they sure add enjoyment to make belive FS is.PatAMD Opteron DC 185 @ 3GHz, Zalman7700Cu cooler, Corsair XMS 2GB DDR, 7800GS-OC, Asus A8V MoBo, RaptorHDD, TrackIR4, CH FSYoke+TQ+peds, Eclipse RED KB, WinXP-sp2

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

>This is rather strange statement. How can you say the colors>you see depict what you see "visually". You have no way>judging the internal strength of the storm unless you have>radar in your eyes. There could be benign set of storm clouds>that would be just "green" on a radar. And like was said>before - in real life radar is not for show but has important>function - it is used for navigation through (or between the>storms) carefully bypassing yellow/red patches. In real life>there are real consequences for flying through the red>areas (sometimes deadly) - in MSFS there is absolutely no>consequence, you might take whatever path you want, go right>through even the magenta areas - having such toy "radar" is>useless.>>Michael J.You won't find a bigger fan of PMDG than me, but your unceasing hostility toward people who point out that they can do better is getting a little old.The fact is, other developers have created a reasonable simulation of weather radar. They have also created very realistic simulations of EGPWS/TAWS and WAGS. PMDG has decided to focus their efforts elsewhere, and that decision is/was theirs to make. However, there's nothing wrong with fans politely encouraging a developer to push their limits. PMDG simulates LOTS of other things that have no "consequences" or consequences that are grossly mishandled by the simulator. Last time I checked, FSX doesn't ice over the windows in SLD icing conditions, nor do I get hypoxic if I climb to altitude with the packs off. And without proper dispatch computer software, everyone who's ever flown the 747 or MD-11 has done so without regard for the "real life consequences" of not properly determining MTOW, V speeds, and obstacle clearance requirements, etc...Of course, none of that matters because its all a game. And having a 70% accurate weather radar is far less "gamey" than flying a transatlantic flight with no weather radar. So the next time you flip on those Wing Inspection & Runway Turnoff Lights on descent, try and remember that you're no more conspicuous to the AI than you were before. Its all just a game.Nick

[engwerda 0]

Well said Nick!Gerry

[Tabs 2,790]

Nick,We've never said anything about not doing EGPWS - it will likely be in the NG 2.0 along with the VSD.

[virtualstuff 758]

>Of course, none of that matters because its all a game. And>having a 70% accurate weather radar is far less "gamey" than>flying a transatlantic flight with no weather radar. >>So the next time you flip on those Wing Inspection & Runway>Turnoff Lights on descent, try and remember that you're no>more conspicuous to the AI than you were before. Its all just>a game.>>NickCouldn't have said it better Nick :-)http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[anthonyrees 0]

Here is a pic of the WX500 radar addon (payware) integrated into the 737 panel. Did anyone get it into the 747 yet?http://www.sunairexpress.com/saxforum/view....php?f=35&t=586RegardsAnthony ReesCape TownSouth AfricaPS: Please note that PMDG will not provide support for this unofficial software addon, so please backup ALL files before making any changes.

[GusRodrigues 1]

>>colors.( Green, yellow and red.) I do not understand why>PMDG>>does not include a WX radar when these other less>>sophisticated sims include them, >>I think the best answer is this>>http://serialconsign.com/images/2008/07/doppler-radar.png>real weather radar>>http://www.avsim.com/pages/0206/737PIC/Weather-Radar.jpg>fs weather radar>>There's quite a difference.>The second is faked up because there is no such data>available.Fixing...Real WX Radarhttp://www.airliners.net/photo/Aero-Flight...-232/1105705/L/http://www.airliners.net/photo/Yeti-Airlin...ream/1402632/L/http://www.airliners.net/photo/Jetstar-Air...-202/1344069/L/>http://www.avsim.com/pages/0206/737PIC/Weather-Radar.jpg>WILCO weather radarReality XP WX500 is much more similar to what the WXradar represents on ND than that thing that wilco says as a wxradar.

[John_Mc 8]

>>This is rather strange statement. How can you say the>colors>>you see depict what you see "visually". You have no way>>judging the internal strength of the storm unless you have>>radar in your eyes. There could be benign set of storm>clouds>>that would be just "green" on a radar. And like was said>>before - in real life radar is not for show but has>important>>function - it is used for navigation through (or between the>>storms) carefully bypassing yellow/red patches. In real life>>there are real consequences for flying through the>red>>areas (sometimes deadly) - in MSFS there is absolutely no>>consequence, you might take whatever path you want, go right>>through even the magenta areas - having such toy "radar" is>>useless.>>>>Michael J.>>You won't find a bigger fan of PMDG than me, but your>unceasing hostility toward people who point out that they can>do better is getting a little old.>>The fact is, other developers have created a reasonable>simulation of weather radar. They have also created very>realistic simulations of EGPWS/TAWS and WAGS. >>PMDG has decided to focus their efforts elsewhere, and that>decision is/was theirs to make. However, there's nothing wrong>with fans politely encouraging a developer to push their>limits. >>PMDG simulates LOTS of other things that have no>"consequences" or consequences that are grossly mishandled by>the simulator. Last time I checked, FSX doesn't ice over the>windows in SLD icing conditions, nor do I get hypoxic if I>climb to altitude with the packs off. And without proper>dispatch computer software, everyone who's ever flown the 747>or MD-11 has done so without regard for the "real life>consequences" of not properly determining MTOW, V speeds, and>obstacle clearance requirements, etc...>>Of course, none of that matters because its all a game. And>having a 70% accurate weather radar is far less "gamey" than>flying a transatlantic flight with no weather radar. >>So the next time you flip on those Wing Inspection & Runway>Turnoff Lights on descent, try and remember that you're no>more conspicuous to the AI than you were before. Its all just>a game.>>NickSpot on Nick. This excuse that it can't be done properly is a convenient response to functionality that hasn't been implemented.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Hi Ryan,I hope you don't mistake my comments as anything but constructive criticism. Just to clarify, it was not my intent to insinuate that PMDG can't or won't simulate certain things in the future.Most reasonable people realize that design decisions are made for a reason, and that we (the users) don't always have to agree with the reasoning behind them. Personally, despite the lack of certain systems that I would LOVE to see simulated, I find immense value in your products and I will continue to be a PMDG customer regardless of whether you simulate the radar or not.I'm sure there are no tougher critics of PMDG than the team members themselves. Thats why I assume you can handle an appropriate amount of constructive criticism without the need for certain overzealous fans to overreact.I'm happy to hear that EGPWS will make it into the new NG, and I can honestly say that I'm not surprised. Keep up the good work.Regards,Nick