@Jim. Re your offer. Would that put WXR imagery on the ND of the NGX (with nav info superimposed)? If not then that is why PMDG would have to integrate this, even if they don't want to come up with the algorithms nesessary to draw representative WXR imagery.

Not sure as I don't own the plane.

Andrea,In the US, part 121,you cannot dispatch into known,or forecast TX's with MEl'd radar.

Did you think for a minute before typing it, how nonsensical it is?What all this has to do with weather radar or pressurization simulation?We are talking about the gauges ONLY and how they are simulated.There is nothing in FSX environment that can cause your death.Accuracy of simulation is not judged whether it is going to cause your death or make you cold/hot for God's sake.

I think you need to read some posts...We are speaking about WXR, but, someone started talking about wipers, flight controls, and antiice, so, it was "in the topic".Read before post...

And do you think pmdg going to change their mind on a wxr , dont know why everyone keep harping on it for

@vololiberista (no real name given, as per the rules) I'm pretty sure the various WXR gauges out there don't just show static bitmaps as you suggest. I've certainly never seen images like the ones you uploaded. They attempt to dynamically draw something approximating to the actual cloud that's in front of the aircraft.Kevin Hall

I know that there is one that "attempts" to draw in real time, but the resulting image is totally unrealistic. The bmps method is standard. A good WXR tries to join two or three bmps together to make what it interprets more realistic. It'strue that sometimes the radar image looks convincing. But that's only because the programme has a sufficient number of bmps to "equate" to what is shown in the sim. I have to say that only on two occasions has my radar been "accurate". Once while flying out of Singapore there were good storm reflections (even so they did not match the actual cloud scene). The second was whilst flying through clear skies the next but one METAR indicated a storm squal of about 3 storms. This was also on the Meteosat immage and the radar! Most of the time you have to be content with pretty pictures.Some people here are asking for real weather radar. That isn't possible. Quite a lot of a/c designers ditch the whole idea of weather radar because it isn't a realistic tool as far as the sim goes. (realistic in the sense of an aid to flying. They are in reality just a set of pretty pictures that looks good on your panel. Nothing else!)vololiberista

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by vololiberista

The point is it doesn't really matter whether there's actually a heavy storm in the cloud the simulated WXR has painted red or not. After all FSX doesn't know either. The red display on the WXR gives you something to steer around as if it was a real storm. You almost certainly avoided nothing at all, but you had the immersive experience of doing as a real pilot would have done faced with the same presentation.

Sorry, but to me that seems pointless. Consider one feature PMDG did integrate into the NAV display with great fidelity: terrain-mapping - a highly accurate simulation of a real-world system on the actual NG. Highly accurate because there is a one-to-one correspondence between the terrain displayed on the ND and the actual terrain mesh in the sim. Or to put it another way, if the display shows red along your projected flight path, and you take no evasive action, (by changing course or climbing to a higher altitude), you will crash into the ground at the point where the red terrain is shown... end of flight, loss of aircraft, no ifs ands or buts. By contrast, if your projected flight path lies only over green terrain on the display, you can be assured that you will not have a CFIT incident - even if flying in total IFR conditions with no outside visibility.Now, imagine if the technology in FSX did not allow "real" terrain to be shown, but just for the sake of "eye candy" PMDG had implemented a "fake" terrain display - plotting random reds, yellows and greens over mountainous areas. Yes, this might provide a more "immersive" experience - but it would be absolutely useless in trying to conduct a realistic (and safe) flight in or near rising terrain.I certainly understand the desire of NGX pilots to have a working weather radar - but with the current state of FSX, the best that any developer can do is to implement the equivalent of the "fake terrain map" in which the displayed greens, yellows and reds often have no real correlation with the actual weather lying along the aircraft's projected flight path. I've used both the RXP and WX2100 "weather radars" in FSX and FS9, and have flown through supposed "level 6" storms with no lightning or thunder, and have been hammered by severe tubulence in areas showing only green (or no returns at all) on the "radar". That said, I can think of one possible solution that might work, but it would require an entirely new type of weather engine. At present, all existing weather engines (either the built-in FSX real weather download function, or external programs like ASE and REX) build the weather based on METAR reports. Yes, if a R/W airport METAR indicates "TRW" or "CB", the weather generator will place a thunderstorm in the vicinity - but there is no way to emulate the exact position (and horizontal extent) of said thunderstorm.Here in the USA, real-time NEXRAD weather data is readily available, and said data is used by countless online web sites to provide up-to-the-minute displays of the location and track of storm cells - or precipitation in general. I have to wonder if a weather engine could be developed for FSX that would use the digital data from NWS NEXRAD to inject specific weather conditions into specific geographical coordinates in the simulation. If such a thing were possible, then indeed a truly "realistic" weather radar could be implemented. Certainly real-world data is already used by programs like ASE to create actual winds and temperatures aloft in the FSX environment, but I have no idea if that could be done in terms of clouds and areas / types of precip in the sim.Even if such a thing were possible, it would only be of use in parts of the world where real-time ground-based weather radar data is readily available to the general public - i.e., the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by JRBarrett

Sorry, but to me that seems pointless. Consider one feature PMDG did integrate into the NAV display with great fidelity: terrain-mapping - a highly accurate simulation of a real-world system on the actual NG. Highly accurate because there is a one-to-one correspondence between the terrain displayed on the ND and the actual terrain mesh in the sim. Or to put it another way, if the display shows red along your projected flight path, and you take no evasive action, (by changing course or climbing to a higher altitude), you will crash into the ground at the point where the red terrain is shown... end of flight, loss of aircraft, no ifs ands or buts. By contrast, if your projected flight path lies only over green terrain on the display, you can be assured that you will not have a CFIT incident - even if flying in total IFR conditions with no outside visibility.Now, imagine if the technology in FSX did not allow "real" terrain to be shown, but just for the sake of "eye candy" PMDG had implemented a "fake" terrain display - plotting random reds, yellows and greens over mountainous areas. Yes, this might provide a more "immersive" experience - but it would be absolutely useless in trying to conduct a realistic (and safe) flight in or near rising terrain.I certainly understand the desire of NGX pilots to have a working weather radar - but with the current state of FSX, the best that any developer can do is to implement the equivalent of the "fake terrain map" in which the displayed greens, yellows and reds often have no real correlation with the actual weather lying along the aircraft's projected flight path. I've used both the RXP and WX2100 "weather radars" in FSX and FS9, and have flown through supposed "level 6" storms with no lightning or thunder, and have been hammered by severe tubulence in areas showing only green (or no returns at all) on the "radar".That said, I can think of one possible solution that might work, but it would require an entirely new type of weather engine. At present, all existing weather engines (either the built-in FSX real weather download function, or external programs like ASE and REX) build the weather based on METAR reports. Yes, if a R/W airport METAR indicates "TRW" or "CB", the weather generator will place a thunderstorm in the vicinity - but there is no way to emulate the exact position (and horizontal extent) of said thunderstorm.Here in the USA, real-time NEXRAD weather data is readily available, and said data is used by countless online web sites to provide up-to-the-minute displays of the location and track of storm cells - or precipitation in general. I have to wonder if a weather engine could be developed for FSX that would use the digital data from NWS NEXRAD to inject specific weather conditions into specific geographical coordinates in the simulation. If such a thing were possible, then indeed a truly "realistic" weather radar could be implemented. Certainly real-world data is already used by programs like ASE to create actual winds and temperatures aloft in the FSX environment, but I have no idea if that could be done in terms of clouds and areas / types of precip in the sim.Even if such a thing were possible, it would only be of use in parts of the world where real-time ground-based weather radar data is readily available to the general public - i.e., the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe.

I Quote all, but, for wheater simulation on the areas uncovered by real time wheater the supposed wx engine should use an interpulation of the avaiable data and fill the empty areas with an approximative wheater.It could be nice, also if it doesn't represent the real wheater in that point of te world. For me should be sufficient to have a wheater that if shown on the wheater radar, represent my simulated wheater, so, rain, clouds, thunderstorms and so on.But it is not possible in fsx.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by davierosoft

Sorry, but to me that seems pointless. Consider one feature PMDG did integrate into the NAV display with great fidelity: terrain-mapping - a highly accurate simulation of a real-world system on the actual NG. Highly accurate because there is a one-to-one correspondence between the terrain displayed on the ND and the actual terrain mesh in the sim. Or to put it another way, if the display shows red along your projected flight path, and you take no evasive action, (by changing course or climbing to a higher altitude), you will crash into the ground at the point where the red terrain is shown... end of flight, loss of aircraft, no ifs ands or buts. By contrast, if your projected flight path lies only over green terrain on the display, you can be assured that you will not have a CFIT incident - even if flying in total IFR conditions with no outside visibility.Now, imagine if the technology in FSX did not allow "real" terrain to be shown, but just for the sake of "eye candy" PMDG had implemented a "fake" terrain display - plotting random reds, yellows and greens over mountainous areas. Yes, this might provide a more "immersive" experience - but it would be absolutely useless in trying to conduct a realistic (and safe) flight in or near rising terrain.

Your example ignores the fact that long before you hit the terrain, the EGPWS would generate a terrain warning and replace the WXR with the terrain display. Hence, just as in the real world, you'd avoid the terrain and take your chances with the weather.As for the "fake" EGPWS you postulated, the terrain data for that does not rely on FSX technology, so why would anyone design a faked terrain display?Don't give PMDG too much credit for adding a terrain display though. That's another example where they were late to the party. Other developers had equally accurate EGPWS years before PMDG launched a product including it. I recall requesting they add EGPWS in these very forums on a few occasions with no success until they eventually announced the NGX would have it.Kevin Hall

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by kevinh

The NGX doesn't use the mesh to create the terrain pattern only because it has a lot of impact on performance.They use their own, based on real data.If your simulator differs from real data... is a problem of the simulator.In my PC it is accurate in all zones I've seen.

Here in the USA, real-time NEXRAD weather data is readily available, and said data is used by countless online web sites to provide up-to-the-minute displays of the location and track of storm cells - or precipitation in general. I have to wonder if a weather engine could be developed for FSX that would use the digital data from NWS NEXRAD to inject specific weather conditions into specific geographical coordinates in the simulation. If such a thing were possible, then indeed a truly "realistic" weather radar could be implemented. Certainly real-world data is already used by programs like ASE to create actual winds and temperatures aloft in the FSX environment, but I have no idea if that could be done in terms of clouds and areas / types of precip in the sim.Even if such a thing were possible, it would only be of use in parts of the world where real-time ground-based weather radar data is readily available to the general public - i.e., the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe.

You wouldn't necessarily need real world weather data for a weather radar. All you need is some method for determining all the weather conditions (specifically the precipitation, and not just clouds), at a position other than the immediate vicinity of the plane. As noted in one of the previous posts the rain in FSX is an effect that gets switched on according to some arcane formula that FSX does not provide any data on. If you somehow managed to build a weather engine that could tell you exactly at which geographical coordinates the rain would be turned on, you could build a realistic weather radar. Whether that weather engine gets the data from a real world source or just makes it up itself doesn't matter.Whether it is possible to actually build such a weather engine is another question. I certainly wouldn't expect an aircraft maker to do it just to have a working weather radar, and to date the weather engine builders haven't attempted it either.John-Alan Pascoe

I fully understand the want to have weather radar in aircraft. It completely adds to the immersion if it works correctly. My problem is that it doesn't. Ever.Not once have I flown into red paint and had a harsh time with the weather (one time, there wasn't even a cloud there, which is a requirement for the whole idea of precipitation for that red to be reflecting off of), and on the other end of that, I've flown into lack of paint and had rain (again, impossible). Sure, sometimes it gets close, but here's where the gross misunderstanding lies:Weather radar isn't a prediction.It isn't a guess.It isn't a model.It isn't what an algorithm determines is the most likely scenario.It is the actual precipitation in front of you. If you see red paint, you're going to be in a lot of rain/hail (again, not necessarily turbulence). You cannot model that here in FSX.By the way, some of your comparisons are laughable. I addressed one of them, but you're all starting to stretch out comparisons simply to bend an impossible scenario to meet your own expectation of reality. Reality doesn't bend. I'm sorry.Furthermore, the random comment about not praising PMDG for the terrain feature is interesting, but I don't know how it fits into the weather discussion. Again, that feature is more accurate than weather radar could ever be in the sim. I don't care what mesh you have. Terrain doesn't change much, and even FSX's default, low detail mesh is close enough to real that the databased terrain feature is still effective. Weather radar, on the other hand? I could plant a hurricane on the tip of the Washington Monument, and I can guarantee you the best possible sim weather radar would only show me that there's a chance of rain around me...somewhere.Don't get me wrong, here. I want weather radar, but it does me no good unless it can tell me where the actual weather is. That being said, there's no point in wasting time on that effort until it can be reasonably accomplished. Now, back to searching for unicorns!

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by scandinavian13

The NGX doesn't use the mesh to create the terrain pattern only because it has a lot of impact on performance.They use their own, based on real data.If your simulator differs from real data... is a problem of the simulator.In my PC it is accurate in all zones I've seen.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the NGX drew from the FSX terrain mesh, so whatever your terrain product is/or isn't it matches what's on the DU.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the NGX drew from the FSX terrain mesh, so whatever your terrain product is/or isn't it matches what's on the DU.

I was thinking the same, but Tabs (Ryan) corrected me and told that they are using a database wich is faster than using fsx mesh.However the database is compatible with the FSX world so the indications are pretty correct (you know tat the terrain display resolution is less than a mesh).They did in order to save or increase performance

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.

That is a nice offer Jim. However I doubt many will take you up on it though. The number one reason being cause they would have to pay for it. So it's not really as important as they make it sound. :( I think the attitude is more like since they paid $70.00 for a plane they think everything else should be given to them free. :( If business does pick up for you that is cool. Extra money is always welcome. :yahoo:I am not going to pay for it cause I already paid you for Activesky 2012 and Xgauge, which is all I need.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by UAL115

Not to rain on Jims parade, but there are easy instructions on how to install a addon radar in the link I posted :-)

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by PIC007