"I respectfully disagree. You'll find that wx radar can be deferred" WRONG!!! You cannot dispatch part 121 into known(edit, OR Forcast) TX with a inop radar.

"I respectfully disagree. You'll find that wx radar can be deferred" WRONG!!! You cannot dispatch part 121 into known(edit, OR Forcast) TX with a inop radar.

Huh? Sorry you're using some terminology I dont understand. I assume you're saying you can't send an aircraft into an area without a working radar, but what does "part 121" mean? and what is "known or forecast TX"?

but what does "part 121" mean?

Part 121 or Part 135 or Part 91 .. are different FAA regulatory frameworks under which aircraft operate.Big airlines operate under Part 121.Even part 135 operations (commuters, air taxi) require radar.For example directly from FAA regulations(135.75): (a) No person may operate a large, transport category aircraft in passenger-carrying operations unless approved airborne weather radar equipment is installed in the aircraft.(b ) No person may begin a flight under IFR or night VFR conditions when current weather reports indicate that thunderstorms, or other potentially hazardous weather conditions that can be detected with airborne weather radar equipment, may reasonably be expected along the route to be flown, unless the airborne weather radar equipment required by paragraph (a) of this section is in satisfactory operating condition.

Correct,Also, commuters are part 121.

Part 121 or Part 135 or Part 91 .. are different FAA regulatory frameworks under which aircraft operate.Big airlines operate under Part 121.Even part 135 operations (commuters, air taxi) require radar.For example directly from FAA regulations(135.75): (a) No person may operate a large, transport category aircraft in passenger-carrying operations unless approved airborne weather radar equipment is installed in the aircraft.(b ) No person may begin a flight under IFR or night VFR conditions when current weather reports indicate that thunderstorms, or other potentially hazardous weather conditions that can be detected with airborne weather radar equipment, may reasonably be expected along the route to be flown, unless the airborne weather radar equipment required by paragraph (a) of this section is in satisfactory operating condition.

This talk of real-world regulations is irrelevant to this discussion about weather radar in MSFS addon aircraft. This topic has gone waaayyyy off course. The subject is whether or not it would be a worthwhile and useful addition to addon aircraft products, given the limitations of the MSFS weather engine - not whether aircraft must legally use it, etc. That's just stupid given this is a simulation. So can we please get back on topic?I'll take this opportunity to add my two cents. While it may not be a very accurate weather radar (in comparison with real world weather radar) due to the MSFS weather limitations, I do tend to agree that something that works as best as possible within the constraints of MSFS is better than nothing at all. To say that it won't be included because it wouldn't be realistic enough is laughable. Many other aspects of the simulation are not very accurate but are still faithfully modelled by PMDG. That argument simply has no traction with me (and many others, from what I've read in this forum and others). Reality XP have done a fantastic job modelling a reasonably realistic weather radar from what I've seen and read. To not include weather radar on aircraft is akin to not including an ILS capability because the MSFS ILS system is not as realistic as the real world one - yet it's been modelled by PMDG. I am yet to see an intelligent response from PMDG as to why they continue to refuse to include such an obviously important system in their addons. The reasons thus far simply are not credible in my opinion. Sure, it's up to PMDG if they want to include it or not. However, if PMDG continue to elect not to include this system in future while other developers do, they do so at their own peril as I believe it will only lead to a loss of income as previously staunch PMDG customers move to products that do include this system.

..... Sure, it's up to PMDG if they want to include it or not. However, if PMDG continue to elect not to include this system in future while other developers do, they do so at their own peril as I believe it will only lead to a loss of income as previously staunch PMDG customers move to products that do include this system.

Let me see . choice: [A] a clunky, game-like plane with a weather radar simulation, or a BAe Jetstream with the most outstanding, realistic modelling ever done in FS, but no radar. Hmmm. ultra realism but no radar, or mediocre realism but a radar. I would be astounded if anyone turned up their nose at a MD-11 or the new Jetstream because of the lack of a radar. These are such stupendous products that the absence of a radar is hardly noticeable. I started this topic, not because i was trying to pressure PMDG into including one but because i was just curious as to why it was a problem.A wx radar would be nice to have. But in the summer heat of Sydney, so would working air conditioning in the MD-11. It would be rather nice if PMDG could make the product actually get me airborne too. And while they're at it, i could use a pert, cheeky, shapely female flight attendant or two around the place to get coffee for me too. But PMDG will continue to make their own decisions as to what features they will model in the simulations, as is their role. They'll look at what's possible, compare the cost of doing it to the relative returns in sales, and decide whether or not to include it. That's their job as developers and so far they've done a pretty damn good job of it.

"I respectfully disagree. You'll find that wx radar can be deferred" WRONG!!! You cannot dispatch part 121 into known(edit, OR Forcast) TX with a inop radar.

Who said anything about flying into bad wx without radar? I said I'd be happy to do it in day VMC.PaulEDIT: I just checked the FAA MMEL. The weather radar may be inoperative provided it is not required by FAR. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=7a52e4a1f5c669206ea5044ff3d1839f&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.1.4.11.2.42&idno=14' target="_blank">14 CFR

A wx radar would be nice to have. But in the summer heat of Sydney, so would working air conditioning in the MD-11. It would be rather nice if PMDG could make the product actually get me airborne too. And while they're at it, i could use a pert, cheeky, shapely female flight attendant or two around the place to get coffee for me too.

That's just an absolutely stupid, juvenile and simply useless addition to this topic. Air conditioning? A flight attendant? I made my point with regard to weather radar and ILS, which are two systems that PMDG actually can simulate with some degree of accuracy. I believe I made a relevant and intelligent contribution to this topic. The two things you've just mentioned are absolutely ridiculous. Please grow up before coming back to attempt to have an intelligent debate with us.

That's just an absolutely stupid, juvenile and simply useless addition to this topic. Air conditioning? A flight attendant? I made my point with regard to weather radar and ILS, which are two systems that PMDG actually can simulate with some degree of accuracy. I believe I made a relevant and intelligent contribution to this topic. The two things you've just mentioned are absolutely ridiculous. Please grow up before coming back to attempt to have an intelligent debate with us.

@mcbellette, I dont know why you bother to hang around this forum. You are so relentlessly negative and carping. You come from such a great part of the world with so much going for it, yet you have the whinging attitudes of someone from the northern hemisphere. It's clear from your posts on this forum that you think PMDG are a pretty low-rent company, producing pretty mediocre products, and that they don't have much to admire about them. If they're such a dead-beat company, why do you waste your time on it?

It is worth noting with regard to weather radars, that they also feature a predictive windshear detection system in addition to detecting precipitation, so even if you are not expecting nasty thunderstorms, it is still handy to have one up and running when on approach or getting ready to roll for take-off. Quite how that could be simulated in FS though, is another matter.Al

@mcbellette, I dont know why you bother to hang around this forum. You are so relentlessly negative and carping. You come from such a great part of the world with so much going for it, yet you have the whinging attitudes of someone from the northern hemisphere. It's clear from your posts on this forum that you think PMDG are a pretty low-rent company, producing pretty mediocre products, and that they don't have much to admire about them. If they're such a dead-beat company, why do you waste your time on it?

I've never said that PMDG produces anything less than top-of-the-line products. I don't appreciate it when others twist my words, as you've done, Mike. I give credit where credit is due. I expect professional developers to be able to see constructive criticism for what it is - a way of improving their products through customer feedback and discussion.Let me be absolutely clear so there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Looking at pictures of the J41, I think it's going to be a fantastic product - weather radar or no weather radar. For me, at least, PMDG are one of two top developers in the MSFS community. The other being Level-D Simulations. Air Simmer look as though they have the potential to be regarded just as highly with their Airbus products. I own all of the products that PMDG has developed, as well as the Level-D 767. If that does not clearly demonstrate my thoughts regarding the quality of PMDG products, then I am at a loss as to what possibly could.The point I have simply been trying to make today is that in future, if another developer creates a product that is at least on-par with the PMDG offering, but they include something like weather radar while PMDG does not, I predict many will go with the other developer. Perhaps I am wrong, who knows?

It is worth noting with regard to weather radars, that they also feature a predictive windshear detection system in addition to detecting precipitation, so even if you are not expecting nasty thunderstorms, it is still handy to have one up and running when on approach or getting ready to roll for take-off. Quite how that could be simulated in FS though, is another matter.Al

That's an interesting point. In the PMDG 747, which I fly more often than other addons, we are given wind direction and speed on one of the MFD's. I notice that at times while flying online, when the weather is updated on SB, wind changes can be sudden and violent. I think it would make windshear detection difficult with the constraints of the MSFS weather engine, but who knows? I don't know if anyone has tried it yet. Would be interesting to see if it can be done. Hmmm...

I remember flying a plane that had windshear detection. Don't recall which one though.Paul

I remember flying a plane that had windshear detection. Don't recall which one though.Paul

Gentlemen,The question remains however. If FS cannot simulate wind shear or percipitation, how can we expect an accurate weather radar or wind shear detection thingimajig? I do appreciate the posters who would love to see the 'clouds' on the radar screen to potentially avoid rough WX, but in real life the radar is detecting percipitation not 'clouds' right? As long as the weather engine is as rudimentary as it is I agree with the stance of PMDG to avoid the 'weather radar'.My 2 cents worth,

This is PMDGs product line. If they can't or won't include a weather radar and you just have to have it, don't buy the product.. Quite simple really...

The question remains however. If FS cannot simulate wind shear or percipitation, how can we expect an accurate weather radar or wind shear detection thingimajig? I do appreciate the posters who would love to see the 'clouds' on the radar screen to potentially avoid rough WX, but in real life the radar is detecting percipitation not 'clouds' right? As long as the weather engine is as rudimentary as it is I agree with the stance of PMDG to avoid the 'weather radar'.

Like I said, I don't even recall which plane I was flying, I just remember going around. You raise a good point though. Just because you see 3 clouds in the sky doesn't mean the wx radar will show 3 returns. A lack of a return on the weather radar does not guarantee visual meteorological conditions. I don't half mind not having it, because I'm sure the frame rates would suffer. Besides, can you imagine the heartache it would cause on vatsim when some clown starts to ask for deviations around every speck of green on the display?Here's another way to look at it. People are perfectly happy to do autolands on any runway with an ILS, even though the majority of runways do not support autoland. What then is the big deal about not having weather radar?Paul