Then go do it, Luke. If it's so easy, go do it. Go find the data that doesn't exist and make a simple gauge. I'm not asking for integration, I'm not asking for the dimming knobs on the NGX to work. Simply create a gauge that will show me where the rain actually is. If I fly into a cloud with depicted rain and there's no rain, then the endeavor doesn't pass and back to the drawing board for you.The fact remains that it's a simulation. Go read the definition in a dictionary.Pure dribble deleted - stay on topic will you.

Tell you what, why do you go make 1 that show how it doesnt work.I have another addon with WXR, that tells me, by the means of green cloud and red clouds where turbulance is..the red clouds.Fly through them and the plane gets thrown around - - - its doing its job - - telling me where not to fly.Simple.It works everytime, red clouds throw me around,green clouds dont.Now, if everytime i fly through a red cloud that is dipicted in the WXR, i get thrown around, how, in what way is that not working properly?Thunderstorm = turbulance = red clouds = bumpy ride.(= wxr doin wot it gota do)I cant make it anymore lamen than that for you.''The fact remains that it's a simulation.'' .....ughhh yeh, exactly.. :(

100% agree. FAR too much Hostility from people hiding behind their computer screens.Not many would dare speak directly to you in the way they type in the forum, for fear of a bloody nose.Correct: " Nobody forces you to to read the replies " -- you might even consider BLOCKING posts from those that tend to get under your skin. -- makes for a much more enjoyable read of the forum. :(

Again, where has there been any hostility in any of my posts? Sure, I'm not posting here with welcoming arms, fluffy clouds and rainbows saying "all are welcome here and all opinions are valid, and everyone deserves to be coddled," but I'm certainly not attacking anyone, or acting hostile in any way, whatsoever.

Tell you what, why do you go make 1 that show how it doesnt work.I have another addon with WXR, that tells me, by the means of green cloud and red clouds where turbulance is..the red clouds.Fly through them and the plane gets thrown around - - - its doing its job - - telling me where not to fly.Simple.It works everytime, red clouds throw me around,green clouds dont.Now, if everytime i fly through a red cloud that is dipicted in the WXR, i get thrown around, how, in what way is that not working properly?Thunderstorm = turbulance = red clouds = bumpy ride.(= wxr doin wot it gota do)I cant make it anymore lamen than that for you.''The fact remains that it's a simulation.'' .....ughhh yeh, exactly..

That's not how weather radar works, and therein lies the problem. You're accepting the lie that is because you don't understand what it should be telling you. Green means light echoes, red means strong echoes. Echoes are reflections off of airborne objects, which in the case of clouds, is water or hail. It does not indicate turbulence, directly. Of course, there's a stong correlation between heavy precip, large storms and turbuluence, but this is not always true, so red returns don't always mean turbulence. There's a separate radar mode that determines this and it paints in purple hues....and as long as we're putting this in laymen's terms:Heavy precip = lots of reflections = red paint on the display. Not possibility of, but a hard fact. There's no way to determine the hard fact of precipitation existence in Flight Sim. You can have a massive deluge of rain (red paint) and a completely smooth ride. Turbulence plays no factor in the standard weather mode, and in its case, it's merely predictive based on differences in the radar's perception of shifts in wind direction and speed.The data does not exist. I'm not sure how much more layman I can make that for you. If the data does not exist, I can't do anything with it to show it to you.How about this:You go read up on how radar operates, and then you can lecture me on what I ought to do. Until then, I'll wait for an actual valid argument for why anyone should go hunting for something that doesn't exist.

ehhmm.no.that is not what wxr does.edit: that was a response to Luke, not Kyle.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Fabo

Tell you what, why do you go make 1 that show how it doesnt work.I have another addon with WXR, that tells me, by the means of green cloud and red clouds where turbulance is..the red clouds.Fly through them and the plane gets thrown around - - - its doing its job - - telling me where not to fly.Simple.It works everytime, red clouds throw me around,green clouds dont.Now, if everytime i fly through a red cloud that is dipicted in the WXR, i get thrown around, how, in what way is that not working properly?Thunderstorm = turbulance = red clouds = bumpy ride.(= wxr doin wot it gota do)I cant make it anymore lamen than that for you.''The fact remains that it's a simulation.'' .....ughhh yeh, exactly.. :(

Yet another example of someone who will not/cannot accept the truth. Weather radar is exactly as I described below. It is FAKE.See below which also explains why weather radar "cannot" simulate sim weather.This thread needs to be locked so that the disbelievers can't waste anymore of our time!!vololiberista

Reality XP Radar "and" any other "weather radar" progamme does not produce an image of what it sees in front of the a/c. As has been said here and many times elsewhere it is simply "not" possible! The best that these programmes can do is to simmulate and they do this by projecting set piece bmps which approximate the clouds being rendered.here is just one example out of dozens of different bmps ranging from a just a few clouds to intense storms.

As you can see it gives the impression of a bird's eye view of the weather interpreted area. It isn't and cannot be a true radar reflection. It isn't modelled nor can it be.

Consequently the "radar" reflection in your cockpit panel will never show you what you can see nor will it accurately return precipitation levels.Look here for how the clouds "are" modelled by the simhttp://ofb.net/~niniane/clouds-jgt.pdfThis topic comes up time and again. The simple answer is with reference to "can "x" produce an accurate weather radar?" is It won't be done because it "can't be done!vololiberista

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by vololiberista

Your banging on about it like its a real plane we're talking about..jeessIts fake..yes..i havnt said its not.Do i give a rodents rectum? No i do not..i just want the simulator, that is simulating me flying a planes, through simulated clouds, to simulate a simulated WXR...and whilst we're on the piont of not simulating it because its not real (in a simulator mind you..whitch isnt real in the 1st place!) Answer this, as it was bypassed before : Why does the ngx have working window wipers?...well?..they dont do anything, right?..they wipe nothing off the windows, right?(giving you something that does nothing...why? eye candy?...WXR is also eye candy)@ vololiberista No, i do except the truth, i know it cannot be done to a level of real world wxr..but who cares.The pic in post #55 is doing a nice job of it.

In your posts you are implying that your radar is displaying "exactly" what you are seeing and experiencing, which is false. Bmps that show a lot of red picturing thunderstorms are triggered by the lightning effect!vololiberista

Luke, I would say that if you want a simulation of something unrealistic, then you should go to the likes of Abacus, not PMDG, but.. oh well, rodents rectum.Once again, f you want unreal, go elsewhere. If you want a WXR that you can use same as the real thing, as much as you can use NGX FMC same as real thing, then you are out of luck

All,This is a "for real" proposal from me. For any of you that would like weather radar in ANY of your planes I will charge you $15 per plane, paid via PayPal. You just need to supply me with some important information and I'll do the rest. It doesn't matter if the plane if freeware or payware. Freeware planes I can probably find/get, but payware planes I would need to purchase. You can PM or e-mail me if interested.

Your banging on about it like its a real plane we're talking about..jeessIts fake..yes..i havnt said its not.Do i give a rodents rectum? No i do not..i just want the simulator, that is simulating me flying a planes, through simulated clouds, to simulate a simulated WXR...and whilst we're on the piont of not simulating it because its not real (in a simulator mind you..whitch isnt real in the 1st place!) Answer this, as it was bypassed before : Why does the ngx have working window wipers?...well?..they dont do anything, right?..they wipe nothing off the windows, right?(giving you something that does nothing...why? eye candy?...WXR is also eye candy)@ vololiberista No, i do except the truth, i know it cannot be done to a level of real world wxr..but who cares.The pic in post #55 is doing a nice job of it.

I generally try to avoid this, but you asked for it:simulator - n1. any device or system that simulates specific conditions or the characteristics of a real process or machine for the purposes of research or operator training simulation - n1. the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another systemAs you can see, the fact that a simulation is not real is inherent in its definition. What you seem to fail to see however, is that despite not being real, a simulation is something that is supposed to represent the behavior or characteristics of reality. It does not mean that since it is not real, a simulation is simply fake in entirety.Now that that's taken care of, yes, the wipers are eye candy and have no true purpose, but provide ambient effect, and procedural training. If it's "raining" in the sim, I can "reach" up and turn them on for the procedural reference. In the future, if I get a job flying an NG, I won't have to look around at all to find it. You'll note the dimmer knobs on the displays and the weather knobs in the correct spots as well. Similar to the wipers, they don't really do anything, but are there for procedural reference.Where your argument falls short, though, is that the wipers work realistically. The wipe back and forth. The fact that they cannot wipe the non-existent rain from your windscreen is again, an FSX limitation (there's no rain actually there, it's all effects). How can you tell if radar is working realistically? It paints precipitation, which again, doesn't exist, so how can we show it working realistically? We can't.Furthermore, an attempt to get weather radar to work properly and paint non-existent rain would take a lot more time than animating a windscreen wiper. There's nothing saying someone can't add in a trivial animation for the sake of immersion if it doesn't take too much effort. There's a light that illuminates the breaker panel that doesn't work. Should they not have included that for the ambient effect? Why not? It probably took a few minutes.Weather radar? That's an entirely different story.

 

All,This is a "for real" proposal from me. For any of you that would like weather radar in ANY of your planes I will charge you $15 per plane, paid via PayPal. You just need to supply me with some important information and I'll do the rest. It doesn't matter if the plane if freeware or payware. Freeware planes I can probably find/get, but payware planes I would need to purchase. You can PM or e-mail me if interested.

Sorry, count me out my WXR was free!vololiberista

PMDG says that it's not possible to make a weather radar identical to the real 737, because of FSX's limitations. But to be honest, I think they shouldn't take "realism" too serious. Sometimes things just can't be entirely like in the real world. I would prefer a not entirely realistic weather radar over no weather radar at all.

AMEN!!!1) NO weather RADAR is LESS realistic than one that doesn't work properly2) You miss the procedural aspect of weather RADAR operation, even if the display is fiction. They can see the basic cloud types in FS, so they could fake a weather RADAR display based on that. I'd prefer that to nothing.If we are going down the route of saying it isn't modelled because it isn't accurate, why bother with pressurization/air conditioning?One further: why bother modelling a 737 when the flight model is unrealistic to the point it doesn't handle like one? I'm not talking numbers here.Just saying. I find it quite annoying they don't try.Best regards,Robin.

I think that a weather radar should easily be possible. It just depends on how you're making it. You can't make realistic weather radar with the weather radar taking the weather information from FSX itself. But they COULD make a weather radar that downloads from somewhere online, and then converts it into an image on the ND. So it would actually only work in real world weather. But I don't mind because I'm always flying real world weather anyway.

All,This is a "for real" proposal from me. For any of you that would like weather radar in ANY of your planes I will charge you $15 per plane, paid via PayPal. You just need to supply me with some important information and I'll do the rest. It doesn't matter if the plane if freeware or payware. Freeware planes I can probably find/get, but payware planes I would need to purchase. You can PM or e-mail me if interested.

But Jim !...these guys are talking about real wind. Not the kind you get from eating too many beans ! :(

How about this concept.Problem: Simmers want a simulation of a weather radar which shows actual precipitation and turbulence ahead, but since there is no precipitation simulated in space outside a certain short radius of the simulated aircraft, such data is not available for representation.Solution: Create that data! When other available weather data (clouds, dewpoint, temperature, RA, TS etc.) shows probability of rain or turbulence in the area, create a 3d model (within the radar gauge) that randomizes areas of rain/turbulence with severity according to the forementioned actual weather data. Then represent that data on the radar screen.If the plane flies through such an area, force visual rain/turbulence within the existing FSX weather engine. Any rain/turbulence created by the FS/external weather engine should be suppressed though.So there you have it, weather radar with actual visuals simulated.Who cares if it's just semi-randomly generated make-believe rain. It's all make believe anyway but the experience would be convincing.Similar simpler workarounds have been implemented by 3rd party before. Example, I believe FSCaptain can flame your engine out if you fly into severe icing conditions. The FS weather engine does not simulate that.I'm not even asking PMDG should do any of this, it's just an idea.

AMEN!!!1) NO weather RADAR is LESS realistic than one that doesn't work properly2) You miss the procedural aspect of weather RADAR operation, even if the display is fiction. They can see the basic cloud types in FS, so they could fake a weather RADAR display based on that. I'd prefer that to nothing.If we are going down the route of saying it isn't modelled because it isn't accurate, why bother with pressurization/air conditioning?One further: why bother modelling a 737 when the flight model is unrealistic to the point it doesn't handle like one? I'm not talking numbers here.Just saying. I find it quite annoying they don't try.Best regards,Robin.

The Cessna I fly most often has no weather radar in it, but I know some and have flown some that do. Does that make the default Cessna less realistic because it has no weather radar at all? I'm sorry, but I'd argue a radar that doesn't work properly is less realistic than not having one at all.

I think that a weather radar should easily be possible. It just depends on how you're making it. You can't make realistic weather radar with the weather radar taking the weather information from FSX itself. But they COULD make a weather radar that downloads from somewhere online, and then converts it into an image on the ND. So it would actually only work in real world weather. But I don't mind because I'm always flying real world weather anyway.

Again, the issue is that in the sim you're not going to see the same thing. If you're downloading real images from the NWS, you're going to get what is displayed at the settings they're using, not what you're using. The radar in aircraft has adjustable tilt and so on. Using a static image, you can't get that, so you're not going to get accurate information. Furthermore, your weather program would have to break a few limitations to get that accurate depiction of the weather, which isn't going to happen.Guys, what you fail to see is we're not aiming for fish or traffic here. Weather radar isn't simply a cloud finder. If their lack of trying is that annoying, go pick up a coding book and have at it. Their stance on the issue is very, very (did I say very?) clear.It's not going to happen unless there's data for them to find. In all of the FS products, there is no data to be found, in terms of precipitation.I'm absolutely irrationally and inconsolably upset that none of you will invent a unicorn finder for me!!!1!!111!!!