Now that you have heard all the negatives, heres the thread your search didnt find......

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/351012-for-the-2d-lovers-notice-anything-different/page__fromsearch__1

 

Some of us realize that this is a SIM and SIMulated weather radar is better than no radar :-)

Some of us realize that this is a SIM and SIMulated weather radar is better than no radar :-)

 

Yes, have fun replacing your useful information with useless information...

 

And for the record, my post wasn't really negative (well, this one is). It was simply explaining how you're not even going to come close with a simulated weather radar through either method (Doppler picture injection with a forced rain effect, as the OP was thinking, or through the current practice).

 

...but it's your sim. Continue to fly along as you please. Ignorance is bliss, right?

...but it's your sim. Continue to fly along as you please. Ignorance is bliss, right?

 

That didnt take long.

Another reason why weather radar is useless...http://www.met.ie/latest/rainfall_radar.asp

Some of us realize that this is a SIM and SIMulated weather radar is better than no radar :-)

 

 

My take, and this has nothing to do with any specific developer who has or has not chosen to model this feature. It's JUST an observation/opinion.

 

I sit at a pc pretending to fly an airplane, without imagination this whole hobby is pointless regardless of the 'accuracy' of the sim. To wit, I see no reason whatsoever to not allow my own imagination to fill in where wxr utterly fails. If any dev (like RXP has) wishes to game one up, more power to them, if not that's fine too.

 

Given the apparent success of RXP's product over many years, there are clearly a lot of imaginative people out there happily dodging colored blobs that correspond to ominous looking bitmaps in the 'distance' beyond the glareshield bitmap :lol:

Given the apparent success of RXP's product over many years,

 

Not to mention the CS radar as well :-)

Kyle, I thought the explanation above was excellent, and answered my question of the feasibility if my proposal. Not negative.

 

Thanks.

 

Kev

Kyle, I thought the explanation above was excellent, and answered my question of the feasibility if my proposal. Not negative.

 

Thanks Kev. Your proposal really is a great idea, and shows a lot of outside-the-box thinking that steps around tough issues. I kinda wish it would work, because then I could dispense with the counterpoints, and actually almost admit weather radar would be a worthwhile endeavor.

Thanks! I've got an idea about this... Going to do some research as you suggested.

 

Kev

Thanks! I've got an idea about this... Going to do some research as you suggested.

 

Good call. I'm not sure how helpful they'll be, but here are a few links:

FAA's Collaborative Decision Making Initiative (old resources, but some interesting info - some weather-related - it's the project I'm on currently, and I'd update it myself, but the FAA left the website's contract with someone else...you know...can't make things too easy)

NOAA's side of the FAA NextGen Program (of particular interest would be the Single Authoritative Source stuff)

 

Note that the SAS stuff refers to a 4D weather model, which would include volumetric radar data which you could of course slice through in a simulated fashion. For what it's worth, if you were able to find the individual slices the radar makes, you could interpolate and generate your own 3D model for the radar to slice through, but I don't think that's accessible outside of the NWS facilities (and you'd likely be tied to US radar only). VCPs of 31/32 don't give you many slices, but then again, they're meant for clear air anyway, so you could write the code to ignore VCPs of 31/32. They'd probably be too light for aircraft radar anyway, but I'm not sure what their sensitivities are in comparison.

Here's an idea:

 

Take a look at this app at http://www.c-sharpco.../DopplerRd.aspx. Now, you're probably saying "Well, THIS is useless." Not really, at least for US simulation, and there's probably something similar throughout the world, data-wise.

 

So, here's our simulated flight path, and it travels over the zip codes of the waypoints. If you could see a max range picture at every waypoint (80 mile? 100 mile? in diameter) then all the sim has to do is load the real time cloud data from the wx source and the jpgs from the wx channel source. After that, the EFIS just scales the viewport of the the jpg as it's displayed on the MFDs with the wx radar selected.

 

It sounds simple, but some coder out there could do it. I can't. I program robots and PLC/HMI systems for equipment that I spec out, so I will not be the creator of this. But it could be done. Even if it was static and loaded with the cloudset at the beginning of the flight, there would be some reality linked to both what you see out the windscreen and what you see on the wx radar display.

 

Edit: Obviously, it's ground-based radar and is not going to be a precise simulation of what you will see at altitude.

 

Kev

Good call. I'm not sure how helpful they'll be, but here are a few links:

FAA's Collaborative Decision Making Initiative (old resources, but some interesting info - some weather-related - it's the project I'm on currently, and I'd update it myself, but the FAA left the website's contract with someone else...you know...can't make things too easy)

NOAA's side of the FAA NextGen Program (of particular interest would be the Single Authoritative Source stuff)

 

Note that the SAS stuff refers to a 4D weather model, which would include volumetric radar data which you could of course slice through in a simulated fashion. For what it's worth, if you were able to find the individual slices the radar makes, you could interpolate and generate your own 3D model for the radar to slice through, but I don't think that's accessible outside of the NWS facilities (and you'd likely be tied to US radar only). VCPs of 31/32 don't give you many slices, but then again, they're meant for clear air anyway, so you could write the code to ignore VCPs of 31/32. They'd probably be too light for aircraft radar anyway, but I'm not sure what their sensitivities are in comparison.

 

OK, I'm tired now after digesting that information... :Hypnotized: You're right, the SAS and 4D initiative stuff is interesting and very relevant. Thanks, Kyle! Fascinating stuff. I agree that I'd rather have something relevant than a meaningless colored splotch. Of course, I've still got it in my head that something similar to the link I posted could work for us from a simulation aspect. IOW, a "meaningful" colored splotch!

 

Kev

 

By the way, for the detractors, I realize that waypoints over oceans don't have zip codes... Thought I'd head that off early. However, if we could base the imagery on lat/lon info and not on zip codes, it would be more relevant.

OK, I'm tired now after digesting that information...

 

Now you know how I feel when I get home...haha.

I'm afraid weather radar in the sim is a no no! It cannot be done!

All you'll see is a cleverly chosen bmp that approximates the cloud cover and precipitation report of the Metar. Sim weather radar will not and cannot map the clouds as you see them outside the a/c.

This topic has been beaten to death so many times in the forums I think avsim should have a huge sticky banner "Weather Radar cannot be modelled in the Sim!"

All you'll see is a cleverly chosen bmp that approximates the cloud cover

 

You do realize weather radar is not designed to show clouds, only precipitation?