Weather Radar

[Tabs 2,790]

Ryan, does using the "TERR" mode in the NGX bring on a drop in FPS? It sounds to me that besides visually displaying the terrain, it must take a fair amount of coding to make this function work. That must surely have an impact on FPS.

No impact that we've seen from either the ND mode or the VSD.

I hope that while no weather radar will be present, the terrain on ND will be there. I like my ND colorful that's all :(

We've shown it in probably 4 or 5 different screenshots now lol...

[yos233 1]

Here is onehttps://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/--xU8iuXD_ah69X7IsAiTg?feat=directlink

[Cai Zicheng 171]

No impact that we've seen from either the ND mode or the VSD.We've shown it in probably 4 or 5 different screenshots now lol...

Hi, Ryan. Do you recommend the AivlaSoft EFB to use with the upcoming NGX?

[Efussander 0]

Here is onehttps://picasaweb.go...feat=directlink

WOW, I forgot how good the pedestal looks! Nice collection!!!!

[kevinh 409]

Here is an idea: why don't you take the general weather from FSX, and simulate your own precipitation model in your weather RADAR, and model from there? Sure, it doesn't reflect what FSX is doing, but then this aspect of FSX is hardly accurate to start with is it (who gets rain in clear patches of sky?!). That way you get your realistic weather RADAR to model and we get a weather RADAR to play with! :)Best regards,Robin.

This is pretty much how weather radar is dealt with in commercial full flight simulators, which usually have no dyanamic weather modelling other than what the instructor selects. The instructor positions storm cells (or selects preset weather scenarios) and the WXR displays them accordingly. In a Level D sim, the visible clouds must be coordinated with the weather radar. However for a PC sim with no instructor to help setting up the weather would be a big overhead on the add-on.Kevin

[kevinh 409]

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.

Hi Vin,I fully understand PMDG's position, but the niceties of only simulating WXR via precipitation rather than reported cloud position is rather pedantic. Weather radar was never designed to look for precipitation per se. The idea is to identify dangerous storm cells. It was noticed that the level of precipitation in a cloud related to storm intensity, so precipitation returns are a good indicator of weather problems. If you display the clouds FSX creates you bypass this realism but the overall effect is reasonable.Isn't the icing simulation in the J41 not totally justified since the same FSX weather limitations apply. No one objects because it adds to the experience. I personally can't see any problem with a limited WXR simulation based on cloud position and educated assumptions but of course it's not my decision.RegardsKevin

[ZachLW 37]

I think the biggest problem with a WXR would be the fact that the information it provides won't change your decision making.The day you can actually crash your plane in FS because of weather is the day we'll actually need a WXR. Though it is always fun to have.

For you, maybe! I try to keep things pretty smooth. With ASE running, FSX has given me some pretty believable turbulence. My favorite being the thermal like areas that give me a great increase in performance for 10-20 seconds and then back to normal, having to pitch back up to maintain desired climb/cruise/descent. You're a pilot, you know what I'm talking about.I avoid the storms as I do in real life, and use my laptop for airline flights to simulate TS awareness as if I had a radar. If only I could call the flight service station and keep updated through them. (I guess I could regardless of the fact I'm in a sim) :( But since it's a dead horse, I'll just say maybe some day weather will be depicted in a realistic fashion.

[waleed 26]

At least we have a healthy discussion going on, especially when it comes to wxr.I was going to propose having wxr as an option for say active sky, or rex as they are better, but obviously from what is being said fsx is the weakness here as it is in many areas.I love wxr even though it is not accurate, but hey neither is my flying most of the time. Having said that, I do not mind its absence since I have come to truly understand the limitations of the engine in this thread.So thanks to the op for posting this, and thanks for all participants, especially the knowledgeable ones for enlightening us.:(

[Tabs 2,790]

Hi Vin,I fully understand PMDG's position, but the niceties of only simulating WXR via precipitation rather than reported cloud position is rather pedantic. Weather radar was never designed to look for precipitation per se. The idea is to identify dangerous storm cells. It was noticed that the level of precipitation in a cloud related to storm intensity, so precipitation returns are a good indicator of weather problems. If you display the clouds FSX creates you bypass this realism but the overall effect is reasonable.

Weather radar returns reflect off precipitation - they will go right through a cloud that does not have active precipitation. While it is true that most storms have precip in them, there are definitely cases where you can end up flying into quite severe turbulence without being able to see the storm on radar. Near the tops is one example - this is why proper use of the tilt function is so important - you have to have the radar tilted down or you may not see anything due to the precip being down lower in the storm. This is actually one of the possibilities they're looking at with Air France 447, that the wx radar may not have shown the pilots what they were flying into.

[michal 44]

Weather radar was never designed to look for precipitation per se.

This is not what weather radar was designed for but how it actually works ...

If you display the clouds FSX creates you bypass this realism but the overall effect is reasonable.

This is a conjecture I have serious doubts about. I guess we have different standards of reasonableness.

[Sekstifire 10]

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

That would be a very naive and optimistic way of looking at it, considering the fact that many other features that are desirable (and that have been implemented in other high fidelity simulations) have not been added to their currently released addons, like shared cockpit.

[SpeedbirdA320FO 27]

That would be a very naive and optimistic way of looking at it, considering the fact that many other features that are desirable (and that have been implemented in other high fidelity simulations) have not been added to their currently released addons, like shared cockpit.

I'll ignore the fact that your post makes no sense. "shared cockpit" and weather radar are two totally different things. One is asking for an accurate representation of the real life tech which is not possible in fsx...believe me...I use one daily, if it was then I'm sure PMDG would have made it! (Inclusive of all the strange returns you find around Europe!) Shared cockpit does not suffer this same inability to accurately represent the real life counterpart! It's useless even asking for a 'half' simulated model because it's pretty clear PMDG want a more 'study-sim' style product, so fake wxr would be pointless and misleading..but that's just my opinion..the breakthroughs and destroying of FSX limits they've produced already says to me that if it was possible, they would have done it! I do not see how this is 'naive' or even 'optimistic' (??) A 'desirable' feature does not mean possible....show me an addon that HAS accurate wxr on a realistic scale and your comment will stand.. But who knows..maybe one day it'll happen!Okay, I couldn't resist! Cheers!

[Sekstifire 10]

I'll ignore the fact that your post makes no sense. "shared cockpit" and weather radar are two totally different things. One is asking for an accurate representation of the real life tech which is not possible in fsx...believe me...I use one daily. Shared cockpit does not suffer this same inability to accurately represent it as it's not even in the real 737!Okay, I couldn't resist! Cheers!

The point was obviously that even tho something might be possible to accurately implement in the simulator doesnt mean that PMDG will implement it.Shared cockpit is actually in a real 737, as it is a two pilot airplane. Its not a technical box tho.

[badderjet 181]

Shared cockpit does not suffer this same inability to accurately represent the real life counterpart it as it's not even in the real 737!

Ehm, hell yeah it is.(couldn't resist either) :LMAO:PS. It will even work for up to four players (!)... now how's that for FSX limitations! And it's got intercom as well, and it's got no lag in it. Pretty neat, eh. :(Edit: Dang, Johan beat me... Edited May 19, 2011 by badderjet

[SpeedbirdA320FO 27]

Ehm, hell yeah it is.(couldn't resist either) :LMAO:PS. It will even work for up to four players (!)... now how's that for FSX limitations! And it's got intercom as well, and it's got no lag in it. Pretty neat, eh. :(Edit: Dang, Johan beat me...

Haha...show me where two pilots play through a crappy connection, can't see what other people are doing properly, and fight over controls and I'll believe you that it's in the 737! :PBut most importantly: The tea and biscuits button actually works and doesn't just make a cool noise!Everyone wears 4 stripes in FSX multiplayer But on a serious note, the NGX has modeled Terrain on the ND...or whatever you Boeing guys call it, that's enough of a breakthrough isn't it??