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.

Paul,You got a good point there. I think I should raise it with the PMDG people. Right? NO MORE AUTOLANDS!!! ;-)Cheers,

Paul,You got a good point there. I think I should raise it with the PMDG people. Right? NO MORE AUTOLANDS!!! ;-)Cheers,

Here's my proposal. Half the time, the failure engine will spring to life mid-flight and fail an essential component of the autoland system (for example the RA's). The other half the time, The FMS will look into a new database and only arm autoland if the runway is suitably certified.They'll also start to model hot starts, so if you add fuel too early and burn up the engine, that engine is unservicable for 30 days. There should also be some type of flap damage for overspeeds. When they're through with all that, throw in a rudimentary weather radar of 1950's vintage that can't see past the first intense return, and doesn't have any automatic features whatsoever. How's that for realism?Paul

Lol this whole thing is getting so off topic, Anyway regarding Autolands, get charts for free on the internet or purchase Navigraph and have a look at the RWY Categories. As far as I'm aware we wont be put in jail and FS wont self destruct if we do a CATIIIB autoland into a CATII RWY... but I may be wrong so I follow real world procedures just in case.Rob

Hi guys,don't forget that we are only playing a game. I mean only a few of us have the knowlegde or the education to fly a B747 or a MD11 the way they did it in real life. Therefore I am quite sure that the FS simulation of a weather radar is not less realistic than flying a B747 without a licence and a copilot :(The reason why we like PMDG products the best is simply the fact that PMDG products give us the best impression of what it means ot be an airliner pilot. And in my opinion a weather radar would add a lot to this impression. I am quite sure that it would put the 'feeling' of flying an airliner to a higher level. The DA Fokker - for example - has an amazing weather/terrain radar (Here are a few pictures) and it's so much more fun to fly with it than without.I really hope that PMDG will some day add a weather radar to their products! :( GreetingsTim

Just bought this and it works quite well.http://www.reality-xp.com/flightsim/wx500/index.html

Just my opinion.PMDG seems to do a pretty good job in giving us what we want. So when they figure out or somebody lets them know how to do it properly, I believe we will see a WX radar in a release.

IMHO it's not a question can it be done, as clearly it can be.

Bet Alcock and Brown or Charles Lindbergh didn't turn theirs on for their Atlantic crossings or use GPS.FS has no idea where the clouds are as it's just a weather type depiction so a weather radar. although possible, wouldn't have any reasonable accuracy as to where it is; even the rain is just an effect after all.At the end of the day a developer will add things THEY want to add and if people want to add their own weather radar then do so. I'd like one as well by the way but only IF it was able to be reasonable accurate and given the weather engine that's a lost cause.Let's get the weather engine actually working right first before adding stuff I say.John Ellison

Weather engine working right...you mean like REX or ASA? ;-)

Let's get the weather engine actually working right first before adding stuff I say.

Agreed. Weather simulation is still in its infancy in FS.

IMHO it's not a question can it be done, as clearly it can be.

I agree. Reality XP has a fantastic product, so it can obviously be done and done well. I see no reason why other developers can't incorporate this system in their addons.

IMHO it's not a question can it be done, as clearly it can be.

Really, what can be done? Based on what metric? I think that's the core question.Ok now I am really ducking for cover! :(

Really, what can be done? Based on what metric?

George, you got it I can see that critical thinking doesn't escape you. Statements "can be done" are meaningless unless it is defined "what it is". So far it has only been demonstrated that a pseudo-radar simulation that paints patches of colors can be built.

I like the Reality-XP500 but I recognize its limits due to FS. It is known that it may not depict embedded (in an overcast) thunderstorms here although it will show some. It will not depict precip falling below an overcast although it will show spotty returns of the overcast itself looking like light clutter.It is the cloud modeling that drives it and it does show heavy or light precip in cloud structures, maybe with too much sensitivity. On the other hand I encountered turbulence on a long final near hills with a light overcast with dark spots. The turbulence I believe was generated by Active Sky 6.5.I've also seen slightly dark clouds with not much vertical depth generate returns.If precip is not in a cloud you will not see it. Now, I use a version with 2005 embedded in the title but it is not the latest.If you just want to use the latest as a pop-up for nav but not embedded in the panel it should be possible with any aircraft providing a pop-up window assignment is available. You would not tinker with the main panel and the radar control will be the one of the radar frame itself. You can search the forum for an ill-behaved install of a specific version to embed it in the 737-738 panels. Reality-XP will no longer provide that version. If you are using multiple screens you might want to consider this as a separate pop-up but not as in real-life integrated into the ND.

I agree. Reality XP has a fantastic product, so it can obviously be done and done well. I see no reason why other developers can't incorporate this system in their addons.