Weather Radar

[Chock 17,769]

I've got the CS Weather Radar, I usually stick it in my airliners, but it is largely a bit of fun more than anything else. It can be useful on night flights on occasion where you can't see the clouds up ahead, but that's about it. Because the fact is, it behaves more like a weather satellite link than a radar, i.e. it does not fire a radar signal out and read a bounced return as a real radar does, so it can 'see' a lot more than a real radar potentially could, including things on the other side of a cloud which would have been blocked from a genuine radar in reality.This, in addition to the fact that rain depiction is 'an effect' in FS more than it is 'a genuine presence', i.e. not related to the actual cloud formations, means that a true simulation of a weather radar cannot be done without needing a significant change to the way FS actually portrays rain i.e. rain would actually have to fall from the depicted clouds in FS and so relate to their position properly, and the detection of this would have to be done from a single viewpoint, or at least a simulation of one, in order to accurately portray what a radar can and cannot see.Because the radar beam fans out, there is often a large area of shadow behind solid radar returns. You may recall that one of the speculations relating to the loss of AF447 over the South Atlantic, was that the crew may have detected a small storm front on their radar ahead of them, which was blocking the radar's ability to see a much larger storm concealed behind that small one, since the PRF could not penetrate the nearer storm, and so they may have elected to fly through or around a small storm, only to find themselves hemmed in by a larger one when they got there. You will never have that happen on the CS radar, because it gets the information that a real radar could not, so it does show you nasty storm clouds, but not in a truly realistic way.As you an probably guess, the fact that I bought the CS radar means I'd rather have a blagged simulation of a weather radar than none at all, but a blag is what it is and probably all you ever could do in FS.Flight Simulator is good, and flight simulation in general has come a long way, but we are still a long way off from having a really genuine simulation of an air mass to fly though, and detect. About the best one is to be found in Silent Wings. You probably could simulate a weather radar in that sim better than you could in FS, but even that wouldn't be perfect.Al

[AirbusCG 52]

Hi Emi,you are somehow mistaken:FSX got NO access to this data! FSX and tools like ASE work with normal METAR data and these data don't tell you anything about what's happening within a cloud. And these data gathered via radar are not part of the METAR and therefore not available to FSX. So everything what you see on so called WX in some FSX products is just fake.

Hi,I wasn't refering to real world rain data, but to the one in FSX. For example when you use the weather set rainy day (however it's called in english) there is rain in FSX. FSX must be told somwhow where it should rain and that's what I meant.

It is very poor practice to be hacking apart programs, not to mention the legal issues surrounding this.

would it be illegal just to read those variables in FSX already? I don't know much about those legal things, so can you tell me please?

Also, you don't know for sure that FSX actually has this data. Shear and rain may simply be probability based events. Even if this data existed, there is no guarantee that you would be able to find it.

I'm pretty sure that these datas exist, because even if the programm randomly chooses the locations of rain they must be saved somewhere so that the sim can make use of it.Finding this data would of cause cost time, but it shouldn't be impossible.

Real Wx radar measures variables such as rain density.FSX doesn't model that, so you'll never get a "precisely working Wx radar."

FSX does model that. When you go in the menu where you can make weather yourself you can descide how much rain will be generated. Of cause this isn't as precisly as in real world but at least it is moddeled.

What they COULD do, is allow addons like the Reality XP Wx500 to be integrated into the NFD using the NGX SDK.Will they? Probably not, because they wouldn't service or troubleshoot unsupported modifications like that. Then again, maybe they will and just put a disclaimer saying if you break it, you have to clean it up yourself.

+1 for the Reality XP idea. If you don't get support then I wouldn't care that much, as you can simply reinstall the NGX and if the problem still exists you can still try to get support.And I personnaly think they will include this option in their NGX SDK as they've done so in the J41. But that's just spectaculations and we'll only know when it's released or when someone of PMDG tells us (which is no call to do so!).I'm looking forward to your answers and to learn something more about how FSX works.Emanuel Hagen

[masneoquil 66]

FSX does model that. When you go in the menu where you can make weather yourself you can descide how much rain will be generated. Of cause this isn't as precisly as in real world but at least it is moddeled.

I don't know the insides of FSX, but i'm a developer and i think you are mistaken an option on the menu with the coding of virtual rain or something like that.I think with that option you just select if the efect will be havy rain medium rain or light rain, but only in the radious of your plain.For example,(and i don't know this, just guessing) you cant have the efect of rain 20 miles ahead of your airplane. It is just rain on not... you see it or you dont. So if you can't show rain 20 miles ahead, there is no data for the radar to "detect".At least that what i understand...

[AirbusCG 52]

I don't know the insides of FSX, but i'm a developer and i think you are mistaken an option on the menu with the coding of virtual rain or something like that.I think with that option you just select if the efect will be havy rain medium rain or light rain, but only in the radious of your plain.For example,(and i don't know this, just guessing) you cant have the efect of rain 20 miles ahead of your airplane. It is just rain on not... you see it or you dont. So if you can't show rain 20 miles ahead, there is no data for the radar to "detect".At least that what i understand...

Yeah, that sounds possible. But if that's true, from where does FSX know when it shall rain or not?Or does it make rain in different periods of time depending on the strenght of the real rain reported in the ATIS?Does anyone know this?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Guys, the data "exists," but not in the form you're (or the developer is looking for).First, you all need to understand (as I think was pointed out earlier in this thread), that a radar works by finding doppler shifts. Its returns show precipitation, not simply clouds (if you want a visual of this, go to aviationweather.gov and compare their radar images with the satellite imagery - they'll be different). Currently, data able to be analyzed for that function is not available.Second, the data that is available allows other add-ons to guess where the precipitation is. The upside is that you can get an idea of where the precip is, but to be honest, I've flown through a red cell and been dry in the sim world. Try that in the real world and depending on your aircraft, you're likely not to make it out of there, and if you do, you're going to be soaked. To say that is anywhere near realistic is false. The "weather radars" (or cloud finders, really), are simply eye candy, for the most part. I don't need eye candy slowing down the functional parts of my sim. Real radar doesn't guess. It shows actual returns.

[SpeedbirdA320FO 27]

Hasn't anyone taken the time to think that...if it was possible, PMDG would have done it?

[3-2-1-Now 126]

you could try and directly read memory address, etc., but this is poor practice and is a great way to get anti-virus programs to go crazy.

It isn't "poor practice" to "directly" read memory! In fact, in some of my apps I do far worse (and in case you were wondering it is legal and commercially available, and best yet - my techniques don't get noticed by any AV software).As for sending AV programs crazy - that is the AV program makers problem, not mine as a software dev. ;) When they find a way to eradicate false-positives and capture the real threats 100% of the time then I'll listen.FYI I don't run AV, PERIOD. It's junk. If you keep getting viruses/spyware in your internet downloads, maybe you want to look at what you're downloading. ;)Best regards,Robin.

[Efussander 0]

FYI I don't run AV, PERIOD. It's junk. If you keep getting viruses/spyware in your internet downloads, maybe you want to look at what you're downloading. ;)Best regards,Robin.

+1 Me too. Know what you're doing, be smart, and keep your PC clean, and you'll be much better off than using dumb AV software. I use CCleaner to keep my computer and registry clean. Its free and does a great job. CCleaner

[masneoquil 66]

Hasn't anyone taken the time to think that...if it was possible, PMDG would have done it?

We know that, and we are not talking why PMDG does not do it, but why can't be done.

[AirbusCG 52]

We know that, and we are not talking why PMDG does not do it, but why can't be done.

Yep, we are. And maybe we can even find a solution, but who knows :( By the way another thing I have thought of: Could it be that FSX uses distances for when it rains or when not? What I mean is that it may "think" that it should start to rain every XXX miles. But again that's just anogher suggestion. Can anyone proof anything in this things?

[vscimone 16]

We know that, and we are not talking why PMDG does not do it, but why can't be done.

Current WX Radar on the market, while adding ambiance to the cockpit, are only capable of reporting cloud locations. Actual precipitation location is something that (so far) remains elusive (and that's really what weather radar is all about after all). PMDG strives for quality, and as we state on our web page, "our goal is to provide education and entertainment for customers interested in the complex environment of commercial aviation." While a cloud reporting radar is certainly entertaining and adds, at some level, a sense of immersion, it doesn't fit the bill for education, since the radar returns are not accurate. Until we crack this nut, we will not be including it in our products.

[masneoquil 66]

Current WX Radar on the market, while adding ambiance to the cockpit, are only capable of reporting cloud locations. Actual precipitation location is something that (so far) remains elusive (and that's really what weather radar is all about after all). PMDG strives for quality, and as we state on our web page, "our goal is to provide education and entertainment for customers interested in the complex environment of commercial aviation." While a cloud reporting radar is certainly entertaining and adds, at some level, a sense of immersion, it doesn't fit the bill for education, since the radar returns are not accurate. Until we crack this nut, we will not be including it in our products.

And I agree with you Vin, that's why i said the we (or at least me) understands why PMDG doesn't do it.

[ZachLW 37]

I will say this: radar is a very important system responsible for helping in situational awareness in relation to weather. VERY important. I hate that FS developers haven't aggressively modelled these systems.

[realpilotsimpilot 11]

+1, see PMDG gets it. We all want weather radar because it looks cool and adds, as Vin states so eloquently, a "sense of immersion" and entertainment value, its essentially just pretty eye candy with no real value to the flight. Big planes go through clouds without much trouble. Thunderstorms, not as well. Unless you can show me the difference between the two visually, your radar isn't of much value other than looks.Don't get me wrong, I have a few add-ons that have a radar. I always turn it on and it looks neat. But, I just plow right through what's ever on the returns.

[ajpongress 467]

Real Wx radar measures variables such as rain density.FSX doesn't model that, so you'll never get a "precisely working Wx radar."

FSX does model that. When you go in the menu where you can make weather yourself you can descide how much rain will be generated. Of cause this isn't as precisly as in real world but at least it is moddeled.

No, it doesn't.All that option does is visually change how much rain you're seeing. It doesn't physically add more rain droplets in the sim world. In fact, rain doesn't have a mesh at all. Rain droplets aren't 3D, they're a 2D effect that is centered around your airplane.You can see this especially when you look at your plane from an external view and zoom out...you keep seeing the same pattern of rain falling.FSX doesn't simulate you flying into actual rain that's being simulated falling 10 miles in front of your plane. It's just a "cloud" of rain effect with your plane in the center and it travels with you.Data from FSX tells weather if it's still raining or not. If it is, the "rain bubble" remains around your plane. If you cross into a station identifier that isn't reporting rain, the "bubble" disappears around your plane, which you can also clearly notice when you're flying; one second it's a deluge, the next it just instantly disappears. No stray drops going by the cockpit. Everything just turns off.It's only a visual effect.And since it's only visual, there isn't actual rain simulated in the area for any weather radar to detect, which is why any radar modeled will NOT be accurate and therefore not included in PMDG's aircraft.The data you keep talking about doesn't exist in the way you think it does.KPHL 181754Z 09009KT 8SM -RA BKN013 BKN020 OVC030 19/17 A2988 RMK AO2 You will see a light "rain bubble." Addons like Reality XP Wx500 will also take that data and display maybe only light shades of green around the KPHL station identifier location, possibly in random places. KPHL 181754Z 09009KT 8SM +RA BKN013 BKN020 OVC030 19/17 A2988 RMK AO2 You will see a heavy "rain bubble." Wx500 might show large red cells. It's not realistically accurate.