I didnt' want to hijack another thread, but there was a comment made "FS weather - whatever it is - has some serious flaws."I am interested in what those 'flaws' might be. I use the default weather engine all the time, since none of the addons will work in multiplayer if you are 'hosting'. The planes I have that have a working radar portray the weather very accuratly so I am curious as to what 'flaws' might be causing developers to not model working radars for their planes.

I think the flaws and the decision not to model radars are two separate issues in many respects. One only has to look at how the Active Sky and REX engines interpret metars in comparison to the default weather engine to see that the default weather engine is not all it can be, even though it is perhaps not as bad as some people might suggest.But as far as weather radar simulation is concerned, the problem is largely that the weather data you could use on a radar display available in FS as data which a simulated scope could use by accessing sim data, is not made available in the same way as it would be when using a real radar in an aircraft, i.e. a radar beam fired at a cloud would only see and return what is on the side of the clouds it is on, i.e. a big block of cloud in its path, and not the 'top down view' that a satellite would see, which is effectively what you get with most weather radars in FS, since they get all the info about the weather ahead, which means they behave more like a datalink from a satellite because of that. Military aircraft that have an uplink to an AWACs aircraft get that kind of info via satellites etc, and some fancy GA cockpit gauges are capable of getting that kind of data too, but a traditional 'fire a signal and get a return' type of radar doesn't see through clouds and tell you what is on the other side of them as well.That is actually thought to be possibly the problem which Air France Airbus A330 flight AF447 came unstuck with over the South Atlantic last year, in that it may have 'seen' a small storm on its radar scope and the crew thought 'no big deal' and pressed on, when in fact there was a much bigger storm hiding behind the little one that their radar did actually see, because when it is close up, the way a radar beam fans out from its origin point means a small item can actually hide a much larger one that is behind it in relation to the aircraft.Al

Tks Al, I'm aware of the limitations of sat and onboard radar, I was just wondering why that would limit some developers from implementing a radar in their planes, even if it isn't 100% accurate. Something is better than nothing

Flight Simulator does not provide a direct method for evaluating the weather making potential of the simulated atmosphere. As a result the weather gauges available make assumptions based on cloud density to predict precipitation and/or turbulence that may be experienced.

I was just wondering why that would limit some developers from implementing a radar in their planes,

some developers have stated in this and other FS releated forums that unless the data is correct, no assumptions, and exactly displayed real-world it will not be included in their simulation.another issue is that on most modern jetliners the weather radar will provide a ground reflection display. ground data is even more difficult to collect from a gauge perspective than weather.

even if it isn't 100% accurate. Something is better than nothing

this is a development consideration. some 'houses' are willing to make a compromise, and others are not choose not simulate all system(s), feature(s), etc in the modeled plane(s).--