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!

You got it, plus the visual system in true 3D, with motion blur and depth of field (no glasses required!), the AI traffic, the radio chatter and ATC, the incredible cabin pressure simulation (careful, in fact it would even kill you if you refuse to don masks whenever deemed neccessary!), not to mention the motion platform... Plus when you step outside the door after having landed at your destination, you might eventually find yourself actually being there... Yeah, the NG is a true marvel! I think Boeing got all that right :( LOL

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??

Oh yeah, and we should be glad to have it, thumbs up! Can't mention it often enough, but I'm still hoping for RAAS very much. I'd definately love to check that one out in the sim...

...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??

Its nice, but its not the first or only plane in FSX that has this.

Its nice, but its not the first or only plane in FSX that has this.

Maybe, but it is the first one that read your mesh not a default one.

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.

Very true, but my basic point was that even commercial flight simulators don't have precipitation models in them, clouds and rain are purely visual effects, yet every Level D simulator has to have WXR simulation in it, and many lower level training devices have it too. If sim manufacturer's like CAE and Thales used the same logic as PMDG they wouldn't be able to simulate WXR either.PMDG simulate icing and ice detection in the J41. Doesn't the same argument about FSX precipitation simulation apply?Kevin Hall

Maybe, but it is the first one that read your mesh not a default one.

I thought the Digital Aviation Fokker 100 read the actual mesh, but I may be wrong. Anyway, a real EGPWS doesn't look at actual terrain elevation, it uses a standard digital terrain database.Kevin Hall

... 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.

... I lost a cabin crew member I loved in this crash, so please keep AF447 crash out of the PMDG NGX discussions. Please... I am not even a beta tester so the wait is gonna be long now...Greg.

Why is it that some in this thread can't be bothered to sit and read the information that has so graciously been provided here? A good number of people have chimed in with technical explanations of why this is not possible, yet some here are dismissing that and saying they have an idea that they know better. If so, great! Start programming and I look forward to your weather radar product, provided it works like an actual radar.There is no way to remotely accurately model weather radar in FSX. You can create something that will give you a general idea, but at that point, you're better off simulating a VFR sectional in the side pocket so you can have a general idea of where you are in the clouds, too.If you looked at the previous technical explanation, you would know that FSX rain effects work like this:Other than an effect triggered around your aircraft, there is no rain anywhere else in the globe, ergo the radar has no return to return from. The only way other people have gotten "weather radar" to "work" in FSX, is to use predictive logic to guess where the effect may be triggered. As such, there is the potential to fly though a red cell and experience nothing. With a real weather radar, this would not be possible.

Anyways, it doesn't stop Reality XP from making money...

Anyways, it doesn't stop Reality XP from making money...

and even if it only indicates clouds, that can be usefull at night....and it looks nice too !Greg

If PMDG say nay on wxr i say yay. Clearly they know what's worthy of simulating. People just need to understand that the current weather engine is shoddy. And simulating shoddy always equals shoddy. PMDG WXR X SHODDY = SHODDY PMDG WXR. Tell me my math is wrong!

PMDG WXR X SHODDY = SHODDY PMDG WXR. Tell me my math is wrong!

Yeah, you've forgotten one "X" in your equalation... :(

LOL, another one.By the way, how is the radar altimiter modeled in FS planes? Do they actually simulate sending out a beam down and recieving the reflected beam to indicate the AGL figure I see on the instruments? Or it just pulls the simulation variable and displays it without really modeling the underlying RW implemention? Same for wxr, by just pulling sim parameters and making a reasonable 'entertainment' representation of wxr seems perfectly reasonable. Much like the MD82 Mad Dog wxr, pretty decent, by the way.But who am I to tell anyone what's reasonable or not.... And once one takes a stand saying this cannot be done like the real thing, it's hard to later to modify that position so the best thing to do is to leave the topic alone.Pat

By the way, how is the radar altimiter modeled in FS planes? Do they actually simulate sending out a beam down and recieving the reflected beam to indicate the AGL figure I see on the instruments? Or it just pulls the simulation variable and displays it without really modeling the underlying RW implemention?

It can't model it accurately because the terrain in FSX doesn't always match up with detectable ground collision, especially on steep hills or really bumpy terrain.My guess is there's a separate map overlayed in the sim that has elevation data only.Would be a simple thing to have a plane do constant calcuations on where it's referenced over any given patch of elevation mapping.But that's just a guess.

I think the way FSX does a radar altimeter is it takes your altitude minus the ground altitude from your mesh. It isn't from simulating a beam to reflect off the ground.

Regardless, by that metric, it's still accurate to what's below you. Weather radar is not. It never will be, with the current weather engine. Can we stop flogging this horse yet?