PMDG's stance on weather radar is kind of contradictory. I guess after reading this, they don't want to put it in since any weather radar would be nothing more than wrapping paper and it wouldn't actually show any real precipitation returns, right?Thats understandable as I personally appreciate functionality over eye candy and would rather not have something unless it depicts an accurate simulation. On that note, and I had adressed this way back when they released their J41. The J41 has the visual only structural icing model. So when you fly through given icing conditions, you could turn around and see structural ice buildup on the leading edges. This was cool, but only wrapping paper. As the ice built up, it did not effect flight dynamics at all. Personally, I could care less about visual icing, unless it was an actual indicator of Icing that would effect FD. Again, I could care less about weather radar, unless it was an indication of precip.So why stand on one side of the fence with WX Radar, but then stand on the opposite side when it comes to Icing effects? Maybe it's because durring development of the 41, they wanted to test out a visual effect on the aircraft?I know this isn't the place for this request, but I would personally love to see some sort of Flight Dynamic Icing simulation that affects PMDG's present and future projects.Just a thoughtJB

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Buzz313th

Because, to know if you're in icing effects or not, you only need to look at the area around your plane (the close proximity to it.) And this is exactly what FSX models, the area around your plane.To make a functional weather radar, you need to look way ahead of the plane, and that is an area where FSX does not model any weather/ precipitation. It'll draw clouds, often at random, but they often won't convey to the weather you see in the plane once you get cloe to them.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by KriVa

Because, to know if you're in icing effects or not, you only need to look at the area around your plane (the close proximity to it.) And this is exactly what FSX models, the area around your plane.To make a functional weather radar, you need to look way ahead of the plane, and that is an area where FSX does not model any weather/ precipitation. It'll draw clouds, often at random, but they often won't convey to the weather you see in the plane once you get cloe to them.

So your saying that it's not contradictory, since modeling a change in flight dynamics in know icing conditions is possible on an addon aircraft, where modeling an acurate weather radar to show returns on precip is not possible within FSX?So if they could model a change in Flight Dynamics for icing conditions on the J41 along with the visual model, then why did they just throw in the visual model without the dynamic model?JB

...Personally, I could care less about ...Again, I could care less ...

If you could care less, please do. Unless you really couldn't care less, in such case, please care to express yourself correctly.Thank you.

So your saying that it's not contradictory, since modeling a change in flight dynamics in know icing conditions is possible on an addon aircraft, where modeling an acurate weather radar to show returns on precip is not possible within FSX?So if they could model a change in Flight Dynamics for icing conditions on the J41 along with the visual model, then why did they just throw in the visual model without the dynamic model?JB

Well is JS41 not a lite product, similarly to B1900 planes in the past?

If you could care less, please do. Unless you really couldn't care less, in such case, please care to express yourself correctly.Thank you.

Sorry Fabo, I don't understand your point? Was I gramatically incorrect? That happens often. :)

Well is JS41 not a lite product, similarly to B1900 planes in the past?

To my understanding the J41 is not a "Lite" product as you put it. I think I remember reading somewhere by the devs that it's infact a "Hardcore" product.JB

I don't think if it can be considered gramatically incorrect, but your expression is a logical falacy. From the context, it is cleare that you actually do not care about the problem at all, thus, you couldn't care less (if you tried). By telling you could care less, you actually show that you do care.Unless you do actually care, in which case your expression is correct, but I urge you to do care less, if you can.I was under impression JS41 was a "lite" product, even if remarkably complete. My apalogies if it is not.

but I urge you to do care less, if you can.

I can't, so deal with it!I guess that now makes my prior statement Gramatically correct, or.... Ummm Incorrect.... Hell, now you got me really confused... "Jenny, could you please pass me the box of chocolates";)JB

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by Buzz313th

I'm not 100% sure I'll be explaining this completely correct, but bear with me...The way FSX models weather is like this, in a very unrealistic way:1) Precipitation is not in fact present at long distances from the plane you are flying, the rain/snow/hail or whatever other weather you see in your plane is only there in a radius around that plane. This radius is in fact quite small. If I'm not mistaken, this can easily be seen within FSX too. Use a preselected weather condition which includes rain all around you. Take off and fly somewhere random. After a while, select "Tower View", where you'll look at your plane from the nearest Tower. Most of the times, there will not be weather present there, even though it's in exactly the same area you're flying through.Once again, I am not 100% sure this works, since I have never tried it myself, but I have read it on multiple occasions.2) Since precipitation is not present at the places you see it (the clouds, which are generated randomly, but with the correct density), it is impossible to develop a correct functioning WX Radar.That is how I understood it, I might be wrong though.So you see, since the conditions for your plane are quite well known (due to the perimeter of weather conditions around it), it's pretty much impossible to define where actual storm cells are.

Thomas,That is correct, though some refuse to believe it, and others suggest some inventive, yet very shaky workarounds.

2) Since precipitation is not present at the places you see it (the clouds, which are generated randomly, but with the correct density), it is impossible to develop a correct functioning WX Radar.

That is correct, with the exception that it is not impossible, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It just hasn't been done yet.Solutions have been discussed in this thread and many many others. Statements dismissing them as weak or shaky are opinions among others.As it always ultimatly comes to it, discussion about the definition of "realism" in home flight simulation is difficult. Others will settle for a colourful bogus display, while the other end will only accept it as "realistic" when they can use it to check the current conditions at their favourite fishing spot.Both are right, but the developer chooses where they want to draw the line.

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

No, they did it that way because that is how the real EGPWS works. Using FSX mesh would be unrealistic. EGPWS doesn't measure actual terrain height, it looks it up from a terrain database it has in internal memory.Kevin Hall

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!

Kyle,It was me who made the comment about PMDG implementing the EGPWS. Someone else brought it up and I was only mentioning that EGPWS had been integrated (just as accurately) years before (by Leonardo on the Maddog 2006). I also mentioned it because of the analogy with WXR. PMDG used to say that MSFS didn't fully support the functions necessary to simulate EGPWS. Later they found it does (EGPWS needs nothing more from the MSFS system than GPWS in fact) and now we have it on the NGX. So I thank them for adding it, but they weren't breaking any new ground by doing so, and were years behind the competition.As for your dismissive comments, Reality-XP take a different view to how FSX can support WXR simulation. Here's a post from 2007 which makes interesting reading:http://forum.avsim.n...post__p__793968Saying WXR needs information about precipitation to be accurate is linear thinking. What is needed is a lateral thinking solution to the problem, as Reality-XP created. You could go further than this. Having inferred, from the data that is available from FSX (3D cloud position, OAT, dew point, local precipitation, etc) which clouds might include precip and to what extent, if the aircraft enters a cloud which has created a WXR return it wouldn't take too much ingenuity to then activate FSX precipitation and turbulence at an appropriate level so the plane experiences the weather as painted on the radar, removing these effects when the plane leaves the cloud.In effect such a WXR simulation is acting as an extension of the FSX weather model, creating coordinated weather effects which the aircraft can fly through and experience, or divert around. This is pretty much how it's done in a typical Level D simulator BTW, most of which have far less complex weather simulation than FSX.Many things in MSFS aren't simulated from raw data, but are still modelled in a way which is satisfactory. Simply because the raw data a real WXR uses to produce a warning display is not available is no reason not to attempt to simulate such a display. PMDG's decision not to model WXR is not in question. Their stated reasons for doing so are however making people say here with certainty that it can't be done.So please can we have less of the definite "can't be done" statements. There are many ways to skin a cat.Kevin Hall

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by kevinh

No, they did it that way because that is how the real EGPWS works. Using FSX mesh would be unrealistic. EGPWS doesn't measure actual terrain height, it looks it up from a terrain database it has in internal memory.Kevin Hall

As FSX is a simulated world and a custom mesh scenery could create mountains in few seconds, what best terrain database can you have? The best one would be the use of the fsx mesh files.PMDG uses its own database only for performance issue. The real one needs the database as it is the only way to know the terrain situation around you.If the system could use the fsx scenery database, do you think that using an external one (making it, providing it, and updating if something changes, disregarding our own simulated world changes) would be better?This is the quote from Ryan message you can find here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/357566-terrain-warning-on-final-approach-and-landing/page__view__findpost__p__2202382

We actually don't read the mesh Andrea - we had it working, but that method proved to be too prohibitive on performance during testing. The EGPWS reads the files in the FSXPMDGDEM folder - this is our own worldwide terrain data we compiled and it's accurate to the variable resolution that the real unit has. (shows higher resolution data around major airports vs. out in the middle of nowhere etc)

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by davierosoft

As FSX is a simulated world and a custom mesh scenery could create mountains in few seconds, what best terrain database can you have? The best one would be the use of the fsx mesh files.PMDG uses its own database only for performance issue. The real one needs the database as it is the only way to know the terrain situation around you.If the system could use the fsx scenery database, do you think that using an external one (making it, providing it, and updating if something changes, disregarding our own simulated world changes) would be better?This is the quote from Ryan message you can find here: http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2202382

Yes, but I've also seen posts by Ryan explaining to people asking why FSX mesh isn't used and that the terrain database is analogous to how the real EGPWS works.http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__1986713 Most people use FSX terrain out of the box. That isn't going to be updated, so PMDG won't need to update their database either. Proprietary meshes may be more accurate visually, but as Ryan says in that post, the real EGPWS terrain is quite low resolution anyway.As it happens, Digital Aviation used FSX mesh, rather than a database, for EGPWS on their F100/70. It works perfectly well, but is less realistic than using an internal database.Kevin Hall

Kyle,Saying WXR needs information about precipitation to be accurate is linear thinking. What is needed is a lateral thinking solution to the problem, as Reality-XP created. You could go further than this. Having inferred, from the data that is available from FSX (3D cloud position, OAT, dew point, local precipitation, etc) which clouds might include precip and to what extent, if the aircraft enters a cloud which has created a WXR return it wouldn't take too much ingenuity to then activate FSX precipitation and turbulence at an appropriate level so the plane experiences the weather as painted on the radar, removing these effects when the plane leaves the cloud.In effect such a WXR simulation is acting as an extension of the FSX weather model, creating coordinated weather effects which the aircraft can fly through and experience, or divert around. This is pretty much how it's done in a typical Level D simulator BTW, most of which have far less complex weather simulation than FSX.

I see your point, but again, that's something more in the realm of someone creating a weather program, that PMDG (creating the aircraft) could then tap into to get the end result of a weather radar.I'll concede that, if your lateral thinking mode can figure out a weather system that predicts rain and puts me in a rain effect in that prediction, it's close enough. Again, the main reason I hate this discussion is that currently, there's a chance that I'll end up in a red cell with no precip around me, because it's a prediction and not actuality. With weather radar, you'd never see that happen, because it's not a prediction, it's actuality.With a weather system, if it's only guessing, it's not good enough. Only if you can develop a system where weather matches what the returns show me will I concede that it's worth my time, or any serious simmer's for that matter.

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by scandinavian13