It doesn't simulate a NEXRAD radar it detects clouds and water bodies position. This allows for instance to use the radar with Metar based programs, real weather, FS themes, static weather. I know it's hard to believe, I couldn't at first.Jos

Hi Mike,I know it sounds incredible isn't it? This is the REAL DEAL! Not a fake, not a NEXRAD! a true and amazing first in the Flight Sim world!By the way, the closest thing I've been able to find, which is a PC based onboard weather radar simulation, is offered for $25000... Sounds like a great bargain!As for NEXRAD, I recommend pairing the Flight Line Wx500 with the AS2004 Active Radar. Can't beat a combo like this one! (as often recommended in Flying Magazine too!)Hope this helps!

...which means you have to run the sim with detailed clouds set to 100% with a sufficiently far draw distance....

Regarding frame rates, Jose is right on the money - I have installed (thanks Jose!) into the Meridian and Mike stone's beech with a heavily modified personal panel (awaiting the PMDG) with NO frame rate issues at all. It's a gem. I also used the EZ Config to install it into the FSD cheyenne, but I've got a bit FPS hit there. Might need to do some tweaking - could be something I've done wrong. In general It's nice. Depicts the snow storm currently hitting new england very well, and shows weather themes beatifully. A real winner.Best,sg

How would you say it compares to Activesky's Weather Radar module?

sorry guys, this is simply not the 'real deal' as you say. Before you get the rope (and you will ;-) ) - read on.regardless of what is actually provided in terms of 'operational control' (i.e. tilt knobs, ect) the simple fact is that the image that is displayed is closest to NEXRAD imagery.does it read wx in FS? yesdoes it display wx in FS? yesdoes it display wx intensities in FS? yesLook, I am not trying to knock this product - it is excellent and is unmatched in FS. However, I was involved in a aviation wx radar course offered over a three day period in 1996. What I came away with is simple, the complexities of radar usage are so immense that it is considered an art form to actually utilize to its full and correct effect.Should one expect such complexities to be simulated in FS? simply put... no.You guys actually got me to the point that I went into my attic and pulled down the 2, 3" binders I got from the course. In reveiw, below is a list of the first 7 items that were discussed in only the first 3 hours.beam smearingbeam fillingattenuation/shadowmaskingembedded resolutionground returns layer reflectancethe first 4 hours in a 24 hour, three day course! - see what I mean.This is just seven MAJOR items out of dozens, along with hundreds of issues related to the display of wx - none of these are 'simulated' with this product (nor should be or even can be). Trust me, the images that you see are MORE closely related to a NEXRAD composite than what one would see on a airborne platform. Yes, you can get images that look like that on an onboard system, but keep in mind that they most often do not reflect (pun?) what exactly is going on.Now, with that said, let me go on and say this. I LIKE this unit, I LIKE what it does. Why? because NEXRAD uplink is the wave of the future. I provides a more complete picture, better clarity, good coverage and 'big picture' awareness. With the development of profiling, volumn and higher res programs (not to mention cost and equip weight dropping) coming online - we will be seeing quite a bit of this in the near future.In closing I again would like to say to the REALITY team, well done - excellent work.

>Why? because NEXRAD uplink is the wave of the future. I>provides a more complete picture, better clarity, good>coverage and 'big picture' awareness. Frankly I think you are absoluetly wrong here. Nothing will replace onboard radar in terms of storm detection/penetration ability. NEXRAD is always delayed and doesn't offer the same 'personalized' detail. For those who can afford it (and certainly for the big iron) onboard radar will remain an equipment of choice. NEXRAD may only supplement it, hardly replace.Michael J.

Actually, they did make an attempt to simulate several of those intricacies of radar handling. If you tilt low, you see ground returns, although the ground modelling is a simplified flat earth modelling. The manual hints that if the weather is strong enough, you need to watch out for masking and attenuation although I only bought it yesterday and haven't tested that feature out yet. I'm involved with flying a radar equipped jet on a daily basis in real life, have attended radar usage classes provided by my company, and the main essence of radar usage is simulated very well by this gauge in my opinion...that is the need to constantly twiddle with the tilt knob to get useful images. Is it simplified? Sure, and I don't think it can get any better since the only way get any kind of realtime wx from FS is to look at volumetric clouds, and that is not what real radars actually see. But does it finally give you armchair pilots an idea of what it is like to fiddle with an onboard radar? Yes.

Thank you for sharing this knowledge Mike! and as always with Reality XP products, many of the customer's suggestions are often implemented during the life of the product! So go ahead, feel free to share your knowledge with the Reality XP team! You will service a great deal to the community!The NEXRAD is another tool for the pilot, and the only implementation I know of, which is quite well rendered, is Active Sky 2004 Active Radar. Here is the main difference to my knowledge:- NEXRAD: syntethic picture of the weather on large areas, generaly lagging from 5min to 1hour. Usefull for strategic planning in weather avoidance.- On Board Weather Radar: real time picture of various weather related paramters. Usefull for tactical weather situation awareness and avoidance.They are really a lot complementary, and they can't stop saying so in Flying Magazine. I doubt they are wrong (at least I share their opinion fully).Now as for the Wx500 more specificaly:"What I came away with is simple, the complexities of radar usage are so immense that it is considered an art form to actually utilize to its full and correct effect.Should one expect such complexities to be simulated in FS? simply put... no.You are half right: not all of these complexixities. Hey, it is not a $25000 software neither :-) Anyhow, MANY OF THESE COMPLEXITIES ARE INDEED IMPLEMENTED AND SIMULATED! beam smearing <-- slightlybeam filling <-- slightlyattenuation/shadow masking <-- fullyembedded resolution <-- almostground returns <-- simplified. Room for improvement since the physical model is there. However, in v1.0, it already takes in account Earth Curvature... :-)layer reflectance <-- not yetIt also has:weather area compensationphysicaly based radar / echo modelingmeteorologicaly modeled analytical weather engineand many more out of the scope of my post.So really, why considering this is so complex it can't be simulated?Let me try to put this in another perspective then, that you somewhat mentioned, and that Kevin pointed out:The Wx500 is not a mathematically and physicaly 100% accurate radar algorithm and display engine, **IT IS** a Simulation and Training device to get accustomed to, and introduced to, on board weather radar avionics and its technology. In its implementation with FS2004, it also is **the only off-the-shelf available** simulation to train on interpretating weather radar imagery (not NEXRAD type) and developping associated decision making mindset in terms of Weather Avoidance. In this respect, it may certainly not be usefull from a Technical and engineering standpoint, but it is 100% usefull to any pilot, and this is the mission of Reality XP (from the website):******************************************************************Reality XP provides leading edge training and simulation solutions for consumers, professionals and businesses. Our flagship products are Flight Line Avionics Apollo

Hi Steve, Jos

vs. Active Sky's weather radar - no comparison, the RXP is a simulation of the real deal. I like the ActiveSky module because you can zoom out and get a 200nm picture of the surrounding weather, like a nexrad uplink. I LOVE the rxp WX500 because it is just like an onboard radar, updates like an onboard radar, and uses the actual weather in FS (the real 3d volumetric clouds are detected) as opposed to the ActiveSky weather which is being sent to fs. You look out the window at a thunderhead, you see the thunderhead on the radar, you avoid that thunderhead. Great fun. Also, the activesky radar works only with activesky real weather - the RXP works with real weather from any source, custom defined weather, and the weather themes. Fabulous addon for $25.My opinion, your mileage may vary.sg

Thank you all for your kind responses. It appears that I stand corrected on some of these issues, and am quite surprised. Although not fully implemented, I am surprised and delighted that these are even addressed within the product.Thank you for the clarifications. Now, if only we could get FS to actually provide cause/effect (other than simple pitot tube icing) responses within the sim. In other words, a reason to actually avoid thunderstorms :-)btw: I am far from an expert in this field, many other here have much more training and use of these systems than I.

Although I'm a RL pilot, I have no experience at all with wx radars/Nexrad/whatever - I'm pretty much a Fair Weather Flyer so anything less than "good VFR" has kept me on the ground. Furthermore, where I live (San Jose, CA) we don't really have weather 8^). (Well, we get some rain and fog but thunderstorms and other kinds of severe weather are pretty rare.) Soooo... my question is, if I'm flying with real wx in FS, as I almost always do, and I'm flying in my area (say, all of California), how much am I going to get out of the WX500? Will I be living a life of Clean Sweeps?I will prolly get it anyway because I love what RXP is doing with their product line, but I want to have my expectations properly set.thanks,Dave Blevins

Dave,And I live in Oakland, CA.Maybe someone can correct me but what weather radar really reacts to is precipitation. The stronger the precipitation the stronger echo on the screen. Precipitation may exist only inside a cloud - never reaching ground but it will also tell pilot (indirectly) about turbulence, etc.Now knowing the type of weather we enjoy in California and if this is the only region you do your simming you can probably figure out on your own how often you will see something interesting on your WX screen ...Michael J.

How useful it would be depends on the kind of planes you like to play with and how you use them. If you like using planes like the Golden Eagle, Navajo Panther, or Meridian, and you use those planes IFR in real weather, then I think this guage helps complete the panel very nicely and will be often used. If you like flying the Decathlon, Cardinal, Centurion, etc, only in VFR weather, then this guage would be a bit of an unrealistic addition and unnecessary in your simming.Anyways, as far as California goes, you do get the rain storms off the Pacific every week or so during the winter season. The day I bought the gauge, my test flight was with the C421 on an IFR flight from KHWD-KMCE and back in real weather. The weather was pretty crummy in California two days ago and I was showing plenty of light showers during the flight.