No heavy airliner in the real world would take off without that capability - they don't put radars on airliners just to give the pilots a toy to play with - the recent loss of AF447 is proof enough that knowing what is up ahead at night and steering around it might be wise.

I respectfully disagree. You'll find that wx radar can be deferred, and when conditions permit, crews are fine to accept the plane without it. Regarding AF447, to my knowledge, the FDR has not been found. Until it is found, nobody can know what happened to that flight. Let's not fuel the public ignorance and conspiracy theories.Paul

I respectfully disagree. You'll find that wx radar can be deferred, and when conditions permit, crews are fine to accept the plane without it. Regarding AF447, to my knowledge, the FDR has not been found. Until it is found, nobody can know what happened to that flight. Let's not fuel the public ignorance and conspiracy theories.Paul

Yes when conditions permit. Do you always fly during the day? And I dont know of any airline that I have been involved with that will allow a flight to depart without a weather radar. RegardsRob

Since you can't see the weather up ahead at night, but you can detect it with a radar simulated in FS, it can tell you weather you are heading toward a storm cell. It is entirely possible to use the CS add-on radar to do that (I do it regularly), so it is most definitely not simply eye candy. Try it, you might be surprised how much it adds to the realism despite not being completely realistic.

Hmm, yes....I too have done nice weather avoidance with a wx radar gauge...and it does have some limited use.......However, I have also tried to do weather avoidance where it DID NOT work. In other words the radar showed a mass of CB's, and I flew what appeared to be well around them, yet still got clobbered. So you see, the gauges are all "half-real" and "half-fake".It has to do with the station-based weather we have in FS. Until there is some other method of determining wx in the sim, all of these wx radar gauges will be half-real, half-fake.I really see the points on both sides. Permformance is also probably a factor, too. WX radar gauges eat cpu cycles if you're not careful.

I respectfully disagree. You'll find that wx radar can be deferred, and when conditions permit, crews are fine to accept the plane without it. Regarding AF447, to my knowledge, the FDR has not been found. Until it is found, nobody can know what happened to that flight. Let's not fuel the public ignorance and conspiracy theories.Paul

That's true, but when going on a flight out of radar coverage through the tropical convergence zone, as was the case with AF447, a crew would probably not choose to defer the radar being inoperable as a go item. What is not any doubt is that dozens of aeroplanes chose to steer north of the track AF447 took because they detected a storm cell which was rising to 56,000 feet, and they didn't spot it by looking through the windshield with a pair of binoculars.Al

Yes when conditions permit. Do you always fly during the day? And I dont know of any airline that I have been involved with that will allow a flight to depart without a weather radar.

It's allowed alright. The MEL usually gives the following restriction:"Flight into known icing prohibited"...or words to that effect. Now I'd be happy to fly between 2 airports during the day if we're forecasting clear skies all the way. Don't ask me to do it at night when we have potential for ice or thunderstorms though. So like everything else in aviation, the conditions determine which choice is prudent.Paul

That's true, but when going on a flight out of radar coverage through the tropical convergence zone, as was the case with AF447, a crew would probably not choose to defer the radar being inoperable as a go item. What is not any doubt is that dozens of aeroplanes chose to steer north of the track AF447 took because they detected a storm cell which was rising to 56,000 feet, and they didn't spot it by looking through the windshield with a pair of binoculars.

Your posts are usually enlightening, so I have no doubt that you have some experience in aviation. I would agree with you that it is not likely they left the gate knowing the radar was inop, and you raise a good point on deviations. At the same time, in the absence of a report, I do not know the fuel state, commercial pressures, or anything of substance about the flight, so it's impossible for me to have any clue what the crew was thinking. AF447 will remain a mystery until the FDR is found.Paul

Yup, we can only hope that they find AF447's FDRs.Al

I'm all for a weather RADAR. FS weather is hardly realistic, so not writing one on the basis of a lack of realism is a poor reason IMHO.RealityXP did a great weather RADAR, and I retro fit this in aircraft that ordinarily have a weather RADAR, even if it is a bit out of place (I have it as a pop-up only).Best regards,Robin.

....However, I have also tried to do weather avoidance where it DID NOT work. In other words the radar showed a mass of CB's, and I flew what appeared to be well around them, yet still got clobbered. So you see, the gauges are all "half-real" and "half-fake".

Just one persons opinion... The FS wx engine doesn't accurately simulate precipitation and the effects of precipitation within a wx system. This is one of the many reasons I don't enable turbulence features in any of the wx add-ons. In their current state, the ability to provide anything close to a R/W experience is extremely limited. As has been mentioned in many forums including this one, the wx engines can also impose sustained g forces that are completely unrealistic. I have also experienced substantial turbulence and precipitation when flying in clear air, at a significant distance, going around a wx system. The bottom line for me is the quality of the "simulated" experience. That's why I like PMDG! So what's the point of using a radar gauge that isn't necessarily going to help me avoid anything and can't be modeled to effectively simulate the r/w device? Wow... does this make me a purist (now ducking under cover)?? :(

I'm all for a weather RADAR. FS weather is hardly realistic, so not writing one on the basis of a lack of realism is a poor reason IMHO.RealityXP did a great weather RADAR, and I retro fit this in aircraft that ordinarily have a weather RADAR, even if it is a bit out of place (I have it as a pop-up only).Best regards,Robin.

Robin, I think PMDG not creating a weather Radar due to not being realistic is very valid when you consider the extreme depth of the work put into the simulation, it would cheapen the simulation... but to give an example of some of the points being made - I use the TSR Autobrake system for the MD11, it reads the active sky weather and adjusts your autobrake and manual braking depending on how heavy the rain,snow,slush is at the airport. Now despite the fact that you can adjust the effectiveness I will never get the exact braking conditions of a real MD11 in Dry/Wet conditions, but what is closer to reality, defualt brakes that act the same in the wet/dry or a system that gets it a least 60% right? I know what I would prefer. Like what was quoted by a poster above, I think there is a market for a developer to create systems that will intergrate with current addons without popups panels or systems running on seperate machines.Rob

@KHAOS : I did use the search button, and got about 300 posts or more, and after 45 minutes all i had found were posts saying along the lines of Q:"why are there no weather radar?" A:"we covered that in the past". but i didnt ever actually find out why weather isnt modelled. Just people saying 'we covered that already dozens of times'. So I thought i'd ask. It's obviously a sensitive point, because any time anyone raises the subject, there are pretty aggressive and argumentative answers. Since it's such a sensitive issue, can I suggest a sticky topic near the top of the forum so people like me who just ask out of curiosity, not wanting to criticise, can find out the reason without having people jump down our throats?

That's something I'd suggest as well, a sticky at the top with the general FAQ's would be pretty helpful.I don't know how my tone came across, but if it came across as a bit aggressive, then I apologize - that wasn't my intention at all. Anyway...random question...does anybody else press the "WX/BRT" button on the GCP going, "WORK, DAMMIT!" even though they know it's all futile? Or is it just me? lol.

hello, i am just trying to apply some common sense here, as you all know, in the real world the crew are in the despatch room going overthe paperwork which includes the weather along the route, if this was not required the crew would be told just keep an eye on the WX radar chaps and you will be ok. another safety item is the ACARS which a lot of airlines are operating and can be accessed by the crew to update the weather if they suspect dangerous weather ahead, i think the onboard WX radar is just for info purposes as opposed to being totally accurate. richard welsh

It's allowed alright. The MEL usually gives the following restriction:"Flight into known icing prohibited"...or words to that effect. Now I'd be happy to fly between 2 airports during the day if we're forecasting clear skies all the way. Don't ask me to do it at night when we have potential for ice or thunderstorms though. So like everything else in aviation, the conditions determine which choice is prudent.Paul

Not really. Icing conditions don't have anything to do with radar, except that convective activity implies severe icing. But that's neither here nor there. The provision in every MEL I've ever used indicates that the weather radar may only be deferred if:1) there there is no known or forecast hazardous phenomenon detectable by airborne radar along the intended route of flight.This includes convective activity, and for newer radars, turbulence and winshear too.2) flight is restricted to VMC conditions.Nick

hello, i am just trying to apply some common sense here, as you all know, in the real world the crew are in the despatch room going overthe paperwork which includes the weather along the route, if this was not required the crew would be told just keep an eye on the WX radar chaps and you will be ok. another safety item is the ACARS which a lot of airlines are operating and can be accessed by the crew to update the weather if they suspect dangerous weather ahead, i think the onboard WX radar is just for info purposes as opposed to being totally accurate. richard welsh

It's been a long while since the crews were actually briefed face to face by a dispatcher. Now, everything is done over the phone. And trying to relate what I see on my NEXRAD to what they're seeing at weather.com on the computer in the crew room is a difficult thing.Airborne radar is NOT for "info purposes only". And there is no way to update the weather via ACARS, unless you're referring to dispatcher writing up a narrative about how nasty it looks in front of the jet, and which direction everyone in front of them is going to "shoot the gap". The ACARS can also be used to datalink the current METAR/TAF and ATIS for whatever airport they choose, but that's it.There's no substitute for using your own radar's tilt and gain to get a good look a cell ahead. Nothing ATC can say, or that dispatch can relay will provide nearly the level of useful data as that radar can.Nick

http://www.reality-xp.com/support/training...ides/index.htmlDownload this WX-500 manual and read the radar overview. It is pretty interesting. Tilt management, echo masking by multiple cells, etc. It also outlines what this radar does not do and where it fails. This model is not a Doppler in that it will not detect string vertical moisture motion (turbulence).While the FS gauge does not detect everything this operational overview gives a pretty good idea as to how on-board radar is pretty handy.