WX Radar thoughts - logic Q's

[MorsAbAlto 19]

A WX avoidance system would drain 10 to 15 fps. Not a option within FSX.

Where did this number come from

[AirbusCG 52]

Where did this number come from

The CS 767 I think... Anyway Etai, I've already posted a thread like this where I asked for the tecnical reasons behind this. You can find my thread here. It should answer all your questions about that topic, otherwise you're welcome to bring the discussion up again.

[Guest]

It comes from the 3-4 WX addons I tried..... beside being them unprecise, poorly rendered and so on.., they drained from the game from 6-7 to 18-20 fps depending on manufacturer, beam orientation and distance range radius. That's I guess the reason why there is no a Wx product to buy for sure but many failed tries instead, and that's also the reason I guess why people asks PMDG to release one, maybe into the first NG SP1.... but considering the huge fps drop I doubt they will do it and I agree.

[fozzy 1]

I guessed once and Ryan confirmed it was right... so i'll just repost it. FSX hasn't exactly defined places where it rains. it just has some "stats". If you go in a certain direction it will PROBABLY be raining. There is no precipitation map in the FSX weather model, so there is no way of knowing if in a precise spot say 10 nm in front of you an 10° to the right there will be rain or not.This makes the creation of a realistic WX radar impossibile. EDIT: realistic meaning realistic, not realistic looking.

[opherben 0]

The amount of false information written in this thread precludes I am afraid any fruitful discussion. Some people here fail to understand the purpose of an airborne weather radar, which misleads the discussion. Such as METAR being sole source of FS weather data. As example, that ignores SIGMET, AIRMET, TAF, what have you, from which data is drawn for surface and altitude weather- such as temperature, humidity and winds aloft.

[jbassue 181]

ROFL

You've done it now, get ready to be pounced on by the weather radar issue ######'s

We're not #####, just that some people get fedup of this question, it's been said many times before, No give it a rest no matter how much you try and sweeten it up . http://forum.avsim.net/topic/335805-weather-radar/page__hl__weather+radar__fromsearch__1

[fozzy 1]

The amount of false information written in this thread precludes I am afraid any fruitful discussion. Some people here fail to understand the purpose of an airborne weather radar, which misleads the discussion. Such as METAR being sole source of FS weather data. As example, that ignores SIGMET, AIRMET, TAF, what have you, from which data is drawn for surface and altitude weather- such as temperature, humidity and winds aloft.

All of which have no relevance whatsoever in how FS genrates weather locally (meaning a single spot in space).

[Etai Charit 0]

Guys, chill on the intolerant "I've heard WXR a thousand times already in this forum so no-one's allowed to even mension it" comments. I've seen them, and sincerely asking anyone who has no tolerance to simply ignore the thread (as I do in any thread I have no interest in). I can understand the economical efficiency side: Perhaps simulating it is a whole new type of developement area that dealing with it would take a lot of time in which the product isn't out making money. That I get. I do, however, agree with Opher, If an aircraft is whole it is whole. A product in a level such as PMDG, If it is so completely simulating the aircraft, this one thing that isn't simulated is the difference between mostly and completely. As I said, I'm curious about the programming side. What are the available sources for such radar, what do existing softwares use for it, and what's the problems with the methods I've suggested? Just honestly interested in the developing point of view, regardless of economic and business aspects. Ofcourse I'd rather PMDG had the WXR option, but it is NOT my goal in this thread.

[fozzy 1]

doid you read what i wrote or just skimmed over it considering it as "it can't be done crap"... oh wonder the people :-) So now PMDG should cancel the 737 because it can't be done correctly.. sweet idea. :-D You guys rock! party on! i'm out of here :)

[Sekstifire 10]

Etai, FSX have no way of reporting the percitpitation at various places. FSX will just show you where clouds are located. Clouds may or may not contain percipitation. Todays WX radards in other addons displays the location of clouds. Real life WX radards displays the location percipitation. This is why PMDG will not model one (because there is no way to display in FSX what a real WX radard would dispay)

[opherben 0]

All of which have no relevance whatsoever in how FS genrates weather locally (meaning a single spot in space).

Luca,it IS relevant when you bring into account the purpose, role and function of the airborne weather radar. It is supposed to alert the pilot to areas of potential weather hazard, not locate rain plumes.

[KriVa 307]

*sigh* Give it a rest, please.The people inside PMDG have time and again mentioned it can't be done in a realistic way. If you think that isn't true, take up Programming 101 and see for yourself.No offense here to anyone, but I love how people with more knowledge on the subject (PMDG) say it can't be done, and time and again there are people who have a different opinion, without really knowing how FSX reads weather sources, which reports it uses and which it doesn't, let alone the fact that the weather generated in FSX isn't generated over a large area, but simply around your plane. What you guys are doing here is like going to a Formula-1 team boss, and saying their cars need to go faster. When he responds they can't make them go faster within the rules that were written, all you do is say, "I know, but your cars need to go faster."

[Etai Charit 0]

Etai, FSX have no way of reporting the percitpitation at various places. FSX will just show you where clouds are located. Clouds may or may not contain percipitation. Todays WX radards in other addons displays the location of clouds. Real life WX radards displays the location percipitation. This is why PMDG will not model one (because there is no way to display in FSX what a real WX radard would dispay)

Finally an actual practical discussion. Thanks. so, the clouds position can be outputted from the FSX and translated to a map display, all that we are now missing is charaterizing those drawn clouds and translate it into colors in the WXR (side bar - a cloud is basically water, so cloud equals something to show on the ND, even if light density). For that matter, I suggested in the first post to manage the FSX's weather areal information varaiables that according to them FSX creates what we actually see: Examples: Temperature to due point ratio (can be translated to humidity percentage and/or actual precipitation density -> colors in ND), actual percipitation, clouds types (stratus = green, comulus = yellow , CB = red). Each varaiable can be given a water density contribution factor to be summerised easily. Example:1. The cloud object drawing is pulled and displayed, humid factor 1 = green.2. The area temperature is 12*C due point 10*C, 12-10=2 times factor 0.5 = 1. 1+1 = so far humid factor is 2. For the matter still green.3. Cloud object drawing type is comulus, that adds 2 to the humid factor. so far 4, in the ND 4 can be displayed as yellow.4. No rain, that adds 0 to humidity factor, still 4.5.6.... etc. Summery:ND displays cloud coverage map.Humidity factor = 4 -> thus cloud colors would be yellow with a slight green sorounding. That's my logic idea. Practical or not, and why?

[novacane 0]

The reason PMDG doesn't do weather radar is because it is impossible to simulate the input data that a radar collects inside flight sim. Other WXR out there may look nice but, they are only essentially cloud finders with precipitation intensity as the color. Weather in flight sim is not realistic which is why a weather radar in flight sim is not able to be realistically simulated. Ever notice it raining at 10k feet without a single cloud above you? Other radars out there are guessing on what to display on the screen based on the parameters presented at particular stations. Even external weather programs guess at the space between stations using interpolation and a bit of randomness to make the transition a bit smoother between extremes.

[Etai Charit 0]

The people inside PMDG have time and again mentioned it can't be done in a realistic way. If you think that isn't true, take up Programming 101 and see for yourself.No offense here to anyone, but I love how people with more knowledge on the subject (PMDG) say it can't be done, and time and again there are people who have a different opinion, without really knowing how FSX reads weather sources, which reports it uses and which it doesn't, let alone the fact that the weather generated in FSX isn't generated over a large area, but simply around your plane.

Please do enlighten me.As I said again and again, I'm not trying to get anyone to do WXR for PMDG, nor asking PMDG to do it, and ofcourse not delaying the NGX further more. I just am curious to know the problem. I have written my logic. You say it doesn't match FSX's weather output, so what DOES FSX output? What parameters are there? That's the question. The most I hear is "it can't be done because it can't be done". I just want to know the actual reason, not the same Mantra again. Will apreciate productive knowledge rather than people "do me a favor" sighing over my question. Have a piece of mind - do contribute to the discussion. Don't have? leave us run around with logical thoughts and sigh for yourself. Please no hard feelings. I just want some theoretical true knowledge based opinions. Thank you.