Guys, a weather radar is impossible in flight sim. End of story. There is absolutely no moisture in the sim at all. The rain, the ice, and the slick runway are all just visual effects. Note your braking on a wet runway is exactly the same as a dry runway.

 

Weather radar needs moisture to bounce off of. If there is no moisture, there is no radar return. The sim doesn't show rain outside of the immediate vicinity, so you'd pick up nothing unless you were already in it, which is pointless. If you don't believe me, load up at an airport that has precip, and then switch to the tower view of an airport that has rain on its METAR a few miles away, and you'll note it's not raining there.

It's a sim, there's no real rain, sun, cloud, grass, etc. You don't need real tarmac to bounce off if you land too hard, you just need to know where the tarmac is. The terrain in FSX is just a visual effect too. The lack of actual moisture isn't the problem, just determining where it is, or where it is likely to be.

 

Of course a WXR is possible in flight sim. You just need to think like a sim designer, simulation is not simply emulating reality. You don't need to simulate the chemistry of combustion to simulate an engine for example. Sim design also involves creative thought. Real life WXR detects rain. In flight sim you only know where cloud is, not rain. But you can use other weather info to determine if rain is likely and then designate which cloud(s) will contain falling rain, and how much. Once you've created that virtual map you can draw the weather picture on the WXR display. If the aircraft goes into a storm cell you can turn on the rain around the aircraft and increase turbulence. Et voila, you have a WXR which looks convincing and and drives the weather if you stray near the rain it says is there.

 

Will, that's partially right. It doesn't escape the confines and restrictions of the FSX weather system, however. All it's doing is injecting METARs into the system, and in some cases, interpolating values between those weather stations. The weather "radar" included in those add-ons is not a radar at all. It's a precipitation likelihood display, which is not weather radar in the slightest.

Remember Kyle, this is a simulator. You don't lose points for not getting the weather exactly right. As long as the indications are consistent with the external view no one is going to be able to say whether there really was rain in that cloud or not.

 

Weather radar says "moisture, to this intensity, can absolutely be found here."

The "radars" in any add-on say "you might find precip here."

Again, it's a simulation. If it decides there is rain in a cloud it can make it rain if you enter that space.

 

You can certainly integrate this useless tool into the NGX through messing with the panel.cfg, but you're going to be doing it at the cost of useful information (likely covering over one of the EICAS displays that provides useful information, as you'll see in some peoples' posts here in the forum).

The lower EICAS is always left blank unless there's a problem to deal with, so putting a WXR there is no real loss. But if PMDG installed a WXR on the ND it wouldn't cover important EICAS information.

 

Yes and no. Yes, if they're on. No, if they're off. WXR uses microwave radiation to detect moisture. Yes, microwave radiation. I'm sure you know of other applications of such radiation...

 

You'll note there's a checklist item for all weather radar-equipped aircraft to turn it off after landing. The rampies sure appreciate it, especially given their location for the pushback...

 

Side note:

Radar guns use the same principle. Ever see a cop running radar in the rain? Nope...

There have been studies to show it's not necessarily healthy to be blasted by radar guns all day. This is especially important for those officers who have cars equipped with those trunk-mounted radar units that aim toward the driver (though on a slight offset, to see by the car body).

For any drivers reading this. please don't think you can speed in the rain and get away with it. It's true radar speed guns work on the same Doppler principle as WXR but they aren't calibrated to record rain and the only thing rain does is reduce their range. I suspect the main reason you won't see police officers operating radar guns in the rain is because they don't like getting wet. I'm from the UK and believe me if this was true no one here would ever get caught speeding.

 

I'm not trying to attack your position, but you are far too definitive in your statements. Never say never. A WXR is possible in flight sim. The limited weather model is not insurmountable. But it needs development time and some creative thought to make it convincing. PMDG don't want to devote the resources to this, which I understand and respect. I just wish they wouldn't hide behind the argument that it can't be done. That is a linear thought mindset, and doesn't allow for a lateral thinking creative solution. PMDG have shown they are very creative (the HGS in the NGX is an excellent example of this). I don't really understand why they switch this ability off when WXR is suggested.

From a WXR manual.....

 

3. RELATED READING MATERIAL.

a. Barnes and Taylor, Radiation Hazards and Protection (London: George Nevnes Limited, 1963).

211.

b. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and Environmental Health Service, “Environmental health microwave, ultraviolet radiation and radiation from lasers and television receivers – An Annotated Bibliography,” FS 2.300: RH-35, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 56-57.

c. Mumford, W.W., “Some technical aspects of microwave radiation hazards,” Proceedings of the IRE, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1961, pp. 427-447.

4. BACKGROUND. Dangers from ground operation of airborne weather radar include the possibility of human body damage and ignition of combustible materials by radiated energy. Low tolerance parts of the body include the eyes and testes.

5. PRECAUTIONS. Management and supervisory personnel should establish procedures for advising personnel of dangers from operating airborne weather radars on the ground. Precautionary signs should be displayed in affected areas to alert personnel of ground testing.

a. GENERAL.

(1) Airborne weather radar should be operated on the ground only by qualified personnel.

(2) Installed airborne radar should not be operated while the aircraft is in a hangar or other enclosure unless the radar transmitter is not operating, or the energy is directed toward an absorption shield which dissipates the radio frequency energy. Otherwise, radiation within the enclosure can be reflected throughout the area.

b. Body Damage. To prevent possible human body damage, the following precautions should be taken:

(1) Personnel should never stand nearby and in front of a radar antenna which is transmitting. When the antenna is not scanning, the danger increases.

(2) A recommended safe distance from operating airborne weather radars should be established. A safe distance can be determined by using the equations in Appendix 1 or the graphs of figures 1 and 2. This criterion is now accepted by many industrial organizations and is based on limiting exposure of humans to an average power density not greater than 10 milliwatts per square centimeter.

(3) Personnel should be advised to avoid the end of an open waveguide unless the radar is turned off.

(4) Personnel should be advised to avoid looking into a waveguide, or into the open end of a coaxial connector or line connector to a radar transmitter output, as severe eye damage may result.

(5) Personnel should be advised that when high power radar transmitters are operated out of their protective cases, X-rays may be emitted. Stray X-rays may emanate from the glass envelope type pulser, oscillator, clipper, or rectifier tubes, as well as magnetrons.

c. Combustible Materials. To prevent possible fuel ignition, an installed airborne weather radar should not be operated while an aircraft is being refueled or defueled.

 

Standing in front of any Radar, playing with wave guides, or any microwave source is a bad idea lol

 

:wub: Thank's for that.

 

It produces x-rays as well. Amazing power in that thing.

You are most welcome,

 

Same goes really for a lot of transmitters,

whenever we go anywhere near our radar mast platform,

we make sure the Radar , NDB, and fixed VHF are off.

It's a sim, there's no real rain, sun, cloud, grass, etc. You don't need real tarmac to bounce off if you land too hard, you just need to know where the tarmac is. The terrain in FSX is just a visual effect too. The lack of actual moisture isn't the problem, just determining where it is, or where it is likely to be.

 

Don't over simplify the simulation for the sake of improving your argument. In the sim, there are real approximations of objects. The ground - whether grass, dirt, concrete, or whatever else - is really just a surface that the sim accurately simulates. You don't need to simulate air, unless you want to have that much more accuracy in simulating the actual fluid dynamics of flight.

 

Radar at its basic is very easily simulated and I work with it all the time when I log on to control on VATSIM. As a controller I'm using a simulated radar to depict the aircraft on my scope. I don't need to simulate the fact that the radar is actually painting the real aircraft, but I can come reasonably close by simply having the pilot client report a specific lat/lon every so often. So, you're right! You can simulate radar.

 

The problem is that the data that exists for an ATC radar doesn't exist for weather radar. There is no data for me to use to "see" the weather. At all.

 

Of course a WXR is possible in flight sim. You just need to think like a sim designer, simulation is not simply emulating reality. You don't need to simulate the chemistry of combustion to simulate an engine for example. Sim design also involves creative thought. Real life WXR detects rain. In flight sim you only know where cloud is, not rain. But you can use other weather info to determine if rain is likely and then designate which cloud(s) will contain falling rain, and how much. Once you've created that virtual map you can draw the weather picture on the WXR display. If the aircraft goes into a storm cell you can turn on the rain around the aircraft and increase turbulence. Et voila, you have a WXR which looks convincing and and drives the weather if you stray near the rain it says is there.

 

You're absolutely correct, except you're not simulating a weather radar if you're not actually seeing rain. In flight sim, you don't even have a true volumetric cloud to determine a simulated radar image from. If you look closely enough, the clouds are just 2D images. Even the "3D" clouds aren't exactly 3D, either. If I can't even discern a volume of moisture, how can I even simulate a picture of that cloud. It's about as effective as telling someone to draw a cloud on a piece of paper, not specifying where on that paper, of what size, and of what density (darkness, in the case of a drawing), and expecting them to have the same exact image you imagined in your head. Do that with 10 people, and I guarantee you'll get 10 different results. Radar isn't about variability. Radar is about actuality. You can't get actuality from the Flight Sim weather engine. Sorry to use a black and white term there, but there's just no info to draw from. If you find it, let me know, and I'll gladly get to work.

 

Remember Kyle, this is a simulator. You don't lose points for not getting the weather exactly right. As long as the indications are consistent with the external view no one is going to be able to say whether there really was rain in that cloud or not.

 

This is true. However, you do lose points for lacking consistency. If I designed plane that (ceteris paribus) would fly perfectly one day, cruising along at 250 knots, and then the next day, half of the buttons didn't work, and it would only cruise at 200 knots, then it wouldn't be very effective. Same goes for the sim weather "radar." There is no way to maintain consistency with the amount of guess work it would take. There would be red paint one day and I wouldn't see a drop of rain (an egregious error in the realm of radar), and on another day, I'd barely see green and it would be a torrential downpour.

 

 

Again, it's a simulation. If it decides there is rain in a cloud it can make it rain if you enter that space.

 

Not that simple. If it were, someone would've done it already. ActiveSky and the like come close, but even those don't cut it.

 

 

The lower EICAS is always left blank unless there's a problem to deal with, so putting a WXR there is no real loss. But if PMDG installed a WXR on the ND it wouldn't cover important EICAS information.

 

Depends on which equipment you have. It certainly doesn't always stay blank. Granted, it's blanked after start, depending on company SOP.

 

For any drivers reading this. please don't think you can speed in the rain and get away with it. It's true radar speed guns work on the same Doppler principle as WXR but they aren't calibrated to record rain and the only thing rain does is reduce their range. I suspect the main reason you won't see police officers operating radar guns in the rain is because they don't like getting wet. I'm from the UK and believe me if this was true no one here would ever get caught speeding.

 

They aren't calibrated to record rain, no, but the interference caused by precip affects accuracy.

 

I'm not trying to attack your position, but you are far too definitive in your statements. Never say never. A WXR is possible in flight sim. The limited weather model is not insurmountable. But it needs development time and some creative thought to make it convincing. PMDG don't want to devote the resources to this, which I understand and respect. I just wish they wouldn't hide behind the argument that it can't be done. That is a linear thought mindset, and doesn't allow for a lateral thinking creative solution. PMDG have shown they are very creative (the HGS in the NGX is an excellent example of this). I don't really understand why they switch this ability off when WXR is suggested.

 

I speak in black and white when I need to. I've written many posts that are quite the opposite and highlight grey in aviation.

Oh come on Kyle! You used Latin in there? Jeez! :blink:

 

I didn't know Stephen Fry frequented these forums....

 

B)

Radar is about actuality. You can't get actuality from the Flight Sim weather engine. Sorry to use a black and white term there, but there's just no info to draw from. If you find it, let me know, and I'll gladly get to work.

I've read your lengthy reply, but I'll cut to the chase to avoid a long point by point reply. Why is radar, in particular, about actuality in a SIMULATION? Or is that a requirement you've inserted to suit your point? No sim weather engine yet devised has plotted where all the rain is. It would be a stupendous waste of resources. Even the met office can barely predict it with any accuracy. METARs represent the weather as it was when it was observed at one location. So it's probably changed since then. So please cut the bull about it needing to be an actuality in a simulation. The weather protrayed in any flight sim will only ever be an approximation of reality and the same goes for any WXR representation. All you need to do is create a reasonable representation of what is presented as a visual effect in the external view on a simulated WXR display. If the user chooses to penetrate a red storm cell you can make the sim respond accordingly. If the user steers around it they will have the satisfaction of having the opportunity to react as a real pilot would have done. The main thing for a convincing weather and WXR simulation is that these indications correlate believably, not that they reflect a particular actuality exactly.

 

A WXR simulation such as I'm suggesting would add realism to the limited FSX weather presentation. There would be a possible consequence of flying through storm clouds. Not based on actual weather data I agree, but a reasonable approximation to it nevertheless. What's wrong with that? Please open your mind to the possibility instead of simply repeating the mantra that it isn't possible.

 

Off topic, radar speed guns work on a different principle to WXR. They are CW radars which simply measure frequency shift due to doppler effect which is proportional to the speed of the vehicle. WXR is a pulse doppler and the doppler effect is only of secondary consideration, the rain returns you see are from the reflected signal. Rain reduces the range of a radar speed gun because it absorbs the signal, it doesn't change the frequency of the returns so speed measurement should remain accurate enough. Rain certainly doesn't stop speed guns being used.

Oh come on Kyle! You used Latin in there? Jeez! :blink:

 

Haha. Yeah. Old remnant from my university econ class...

To those less Latin inclined: ceteris paribus = "if all else is constant."

 

Even the met office can barely predict it with any accuracy. METARs represent the weather as it was when it was observed at one location. So it's probably changed since then. So please cut the bull about it needing to be an actuality in a simulation. The weather protrayed in any flight sim will only ever be an approximation of reality and the same goes for any WXR representation.

 

Right and wrong.

 

You're right in that the met office can barely predict with any accuracy as time goes further out, but you're wrong in that your statement carries no weight with radar. Radar is not predictive. That's what I'm trying to say when I say "radar displays actuality." Radar displays what is going on, right now, no predictions, no assumptions. If there is a return on the radar, there is moisture in the air that it bounced off of. If you were in that location right now, you'd be wet. No matter how hard you try in the Flight Simulator that exists right now, you cannot match that sort of accuracy, no matter how hard you tried (even in your imaginative world where "close is good enough").

 

Since a weather radar's job is to display precip, if I show up there and there is no precip, that weather radar is a complete failure to me. End of story. Not worth it.

 

A plane's job is to fly. If I bought an add on for an aircraft that only flew 70% of the time, that's not good enough. Same goes for a radar product.

 

All you need to do is create a reasonable representation of what is presented as a visual effect in the external view on a simulated WXR display. If the user chooses to penetrate a red storm cell you can make the sim respond accordingly. If the user steers around it they will have the satisfaction of having the opportunity to react as a real pilot would have done. The main thing for a convincing weather and WXR simulation is that these indications correlate believably, not that they reflect a particular actuality exactly.

 

Again, spoken from someone who develops (albeit not in the sim, but develops nonetheless), if it were so easy, someone would have already done it. Further, if it's as simple as you're suggesting, I welcome you to start trying.

 

Heck, I'll even lend you my computer with VB Studio so you can avoid the $400 license (remotely, of course). Or, if you don't mind going it alone, you can always head over to Eclipse.org and get their compiler for free.

 

A WXR simulation such as I'm suggesting would add realism to the limited FSX weather presentation. There would be a possible consequence of flying through storm clouds. Not based on actual weather data I agree, but a reasonable approximation to it nevertheless. What's wrong with that? Please open your mind to the possibility instead of simply repeating the mantra that it isn't possible.

 

I'm not asking for the realism of "if I look out the window of my house and see a thunderhead, I should see it in my sim." I'm looking for the amount of realism where, if the weather radar depicts heavy precip, and I fly through it, I want heavy precip. A reasonable approximation of real world weather is perfectly acceptable. What you seem to be caught up in, however, is that there are no flags/variables/whathaveyou within the sim available to tie this information together.

 

I see your point that you can flip that idea on its head and attack it from the opposite side of:

I'll create a weather program that will assemble weather data into a complete picture and then force the local weather variables to match.

...but it's not that simple.

 

Summary:

I'm okay with the sim's weather not matching real weather perfectly

I'm not okay with a weather "radar" showing me that there's a giant red blob that I'm currently in, with no precip.

 

Off topic, radar speed guns work on a different principle to WXR. They are CW radars which simply measure frequency shift due to doppler effect which is proportional to the speed of the vehicle. WXR is a pulse doppler and the doppler effect is only of secondary consideration, the rain returns you see are from the reflected signal. Rain reduces the range of a radar speed gun because it absorbs the signal, it doesn't change the frequency of the returns so speed measurement should remain accurate enough. Rain certainly doesn't stop speed guns being used.

 

Any time there's a change in the density of the media, there is an associated change in wavelength. When it comes to radar guns, this is minimal (particularly for guns using Ka instead of K), but it's still a factor in its accuracy. Since the Doppler Effect is based on changes in the wavelength at the same frequency, the frequency being unaffected isn't the issue.

 

Granted, I have a feeling, given the stories from my relatives in law enforcement, that this the comparative lack of running radar in the rain has more to do with the officer not wanting to get wet (or hit - our state troopers wear grey, which doesn't exactly stand out in dreary weather).

Haha. Yeah. Old remnant from my university econ class...

To those less Latin inclined: ceteris paribus = "if all else is constant."

 

 

 

Right and wrong.

 

You're right in that the met office can barely predict with any accuracy as time goes further out, but you're wrong in that your statement carries no weight with radar. Radar is not predictive. That's what I'm trying to say when I say "radar displays actuality." Radar displays what is going on, right now, no predictions, no assumptions. If there is a return on the radar, there is moisture in the air that it bounced off of. If you were in that location right now, you'd be wet. No matter how hard you try in the Flight Simulator that exists right now, you cannot match that sort of accuracy, no matter how hard you tried (even in your imaginative world where "close is good enough").

 

Since a weather radar's job is to display precip, if I show up there and there is no precip, that weather radar is a complete failure to me. End of story. Not worth it.

 

A plane's job is to fly. If I bought an add on for an aircraft that only flew 70% of the time, that's not good enough. Same goes for a radar product.

 

 

 

Again, spoken from someone who develops (albeit not in the sim, but develops nonetheless), if it were so easy, someone would have already done it. Further, if it's as simple as you're suggesting, I welcome you to start trying.

 

Heck, I'll even lend you my computer with VB Studio so you can avoid the $400 license (remotely, of course). Or, if you don't mind going it alone, you can always head over to Eclipse.org and get their compiler for free.

 

 

 

I'm not asking for the realism of "if I look out the window of my house and see a thunderhead, I should see it in my sim." I'm looking for the amount of realism where, if the weather radar depicts heavy precip, and I fly through it, I want heavy precip. A reasonable approximation of real world weather is perfectly acceptable. What you seem to be caught up in, however, is that there are no flags/variables/whathaveyou within the sim available to tie this information together.

 

I see your point that you can flip that idea on its head and attack it from the opposite side of:

I'll create a weather program that will assemble weather data into a complete picture and then force the local weather variables to match.

...but it's not that simple.

 

Summary:

I'm okay with the sim's weather not matching real weather perfectly

I'm not okay with a weather "radar" showing me that there's a giant red blob that I'm currently in, with no precip.

 

 

 

Any time there's a change in the density of the media, there is an associated change in wavelength. When it comes to radar guns, this is minimal (particularly for guns using Ka instead of K), but it's still a factor in its accuracy. Since the Doppler Effect is based on changes in the wavelength at the same frequency, the frequency being unaffected isn't the issue.

 

Granted, I have a feeling, given the stories from my relatives in law enforcement, that this the comparative lack of running radar in the rain has more to do with the officer not wanting to get wet (or hit - our state troopers wear grey, which doesn't exactly stand out in dreary weather).

 

I've seen some troopers break out the lime green rain gear to stand out, here in Illinois.

Now wait a minute (for some of my fellow purists).

 

There is no moisture modeled in FS. Okay, but is that REALLY the point? Let me explain.

 

I fly shared cockpit with someone who uses the same weather engine / weather settings I do. We both see (and react) to the same indication of rain on the WXR. It's ALL a simulation, whether DIRECTLY modeled, or modeled by influence. In other words, moisture itself may not be modeled, but the software makes assumptions there WILL BE mositure (and at what levels) based upon the weather engine. Sorry, but I was a computer engineer, and I'll telling you THAT IS MODELING.

 

Seriously. Can't be ice of the wings, right? Because mositure isn't actually modeled. I mean, the METAR says it will happen, the weather engine correctly predicts it will happen, but since moisture isn't modeled, we should forget about it? What say you, my fellow purists?

 

Maybe P3D will model moisture for us (ah, I mean their client companies) and put this all to bed. But in the mean time, let's not "oh and ah" because someone doesn't agree with you, and doesn't agree then issue is dead. There are many discussions I don't appreciate, but I try to ignore them and move on instead of making negative comments.

I think I can rephrase Kyles last reply a little more succinctly, and still use some latin.

 

In FSX you can simulate using radar to find planes in flight (TCAS, ATC etc.) because you can simply ask FSX where they are. You can not simulate using radar to find rain because there is no way to ask FSX where the rain is. This is because there is no rain in FSX. QED.

It's ALL a simulation, whether DIRECTLY modeled, or modeled by influence. In other words, moisture itself may not be modeled, but the software makes assumptions there WILL BE mositure (and at what levels) based upon the weather engine. Sorry, but I was a computer engineer, and I'll telling you THAT IS MODELING.

Dave, as a computer engineer, you should be even more in tune with the idea that if there are no indicators to drive your modeling, then you can't model.

 

At a more basic example, if someone tells me "oh hey, I need a report of my total sales for the entire year, broken down by month and product type," but isn't able to provide me any sales numbers, what can I do? The correct answer would be nothing. I can't give you a report of your total sales if you can't give me any of the granular sales data. The idea that I'm going to go in and somehow conjure up numbers is absurd.

 

I understand your point that you would be able to using modeling, but at that point, you're creating a weather program, and not an aircraft weather radar. If you can create an entire weather program that supports a radar that will trigger precip if I fly into different levels of returns, I'd consider that a success, and that's entirely possible.

 

...but I'm not going to walk in to a sandwich shop and ask them to fly me to Miami.

 

I think I can rephrase Kyles last reply a little more succinctly, and still use some latin.

 

In FSX you can simulate using radar to find planes in flight (TCAS, ATC etc.) because you can simply ask FSX where they are. You can not simulate using radar to find rain because there is no way to ask FSX where the rain is. This is because there is no rain in FSX. QED.

 

Thanks Paul. Can I submit future posts to you to be summarized? Haha.

Kyle,

 

I understand your point completely. It's valid from a surface perspective. However, under the surface (which is what you're talking about) it just isn't remotely accurate my friend. I really do hate to disagree, and won't do so if there's no point to it, but it would seem to be one here.

 

What I described is not only done every day computer software without the end user realizing it. It's even done in software used by the military (my background) all the time - even for real world applications and I have over 20's seeing this in just that type of applications. Arguably, we're digging way past the surface and getting into user perceptions based on varying levels and types of data, but when decisions HAVE to be made based on countless forms of data coming in - in real time, then the user sees and perceives what we want the data to make him perceive.

 

Okay, I went too deep, but I'm trying to tell you that this happens in a variety of applications, but especially simulators (of which I worked my part in my early years).

 

Let's bring this back up to the surface. I understand your argument. I just hope you can try to look at it from a different angle, and maybe see something different. 'm just saying that that in software, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and the end user doesn't know it's not a duck, then to him, it's a duck.

 

Now if you're talking about rain the same place for everyone on VATSIM, that's a different story. But I don't think we're talking about that.

 

Quack?

Let's bring this back up to the surface. I understand your argument. I just hope you can try to look at it from a different angle, and maybe see something different. 'm just saying that that in software, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and the end user doesn't know it's not a duck, then to him, it's a duck.

 

Now if you're talking about rain the same place for everyone on VATSIM, that's a different story. But I don't think we're talking about that.

 

Quack?

 

I'm right there with you, and I apologize if I'm not making that clear enough.

 

Given the current practice of trying to compile a complete image from drawing from the sim, you're not going to be able to develop an accurate weather radar.

Using the inverse (which is what I'm assuming what you and Kevin are alluding to), it is entirely possible to run some external modeling drawing from real world METARs and push the data to the sim, and get a realistic radar from that (because you're using external data available, that you wouldn't be drawing from the sim - the common picture is outside of the sim, and provided that common picture is driving both the radar simulation and the weather triggers in the sim, you're golden). I'm entirely fine with that, provided I'm getting precip when flying through returns.

 

My issue is that the latter isn't an aircraft feature, as much as it is a weather developer's task (which is where the sandwich shop comment came from). So, PMDG isn't "hiding" behind that.

 

Cannondale manufactures bikes. If someone wants run-flat tires for a bike they produce, and they don't exist currently, it wouldn't be prudent to go barking at Cannondale. Go bark at Continental, Michelin, or Schwalbe...

I think I can rephrase Kyles last reply a little more succinctly, and still use some latin.

 

In FSX you can simulate using radar to find planes in flight (TCAS, ATC etc.) because you can simply ask FSX where they are. You can not simulate using radar to find rain because there is no way to ask FSX where the rain is. This is because there is no rain in FSX. QED.

 

Incorrect. Where there is smoke there is fire as they say....I have been looking into this myself for a while now and there is actually a way you can get rain returns. Deffo not directly....but there is a way via SimConnect. And im not reffering to the RequestCloudState call. I wont go into the details here though as there are some secrets i do like keep to myself as a dev...

Incorrect. Where there is smoke there is fire as they say....I have been looking into this myself for a while now and there is actually a way you can get rain returns. Deffo not directly....but there is a way via SimConnect. And im not reffering to the RequestCloudState call. I wont go into the details here though as there are some secrets i do like keep to myself as a dev...

If you think you can come up with something that no one else has managed in the 6 years people have been trying, I suggest you keep it so secret that you don't even mention it here until you have a commercial contract signed and the cash in your pocket. After all, you wouldn't want someone to steal your thunder