Why not put a WX radar just for eye candy Tabs ?

I don't care if it's accurate or not. (like majority of peoople i suppose)

Why not put a WX radar just for eye candy Tabs ?

I don't care if it's accurate or not. (like majority of peoople i suppose)

 

+1, PMDG is sometimes taking realism a bit too seriously. A weather just for eye candy would already be great. And if you use a good live weather program like Opus, it can even provide you global data of the weather being in near you, nothing accurate, but global.

 

I've also discovered plenty of inaccuracies in the terrain radar, but honestly I wouldn't care less (as long as it's not foggy...).

Why not create an algorithmic of currant and weather assumed data and spit out a reasonable prediction ? Ya eaziar said then done.

I've also discovered plenty of inaccuracies in the terrain radar, but honestly I wouldn't care less (as long as it's not foggy...).

 

Can you post all the inaccuracies of the terrain radar and have you submited a support ticket since havnt read anything on this before. If your using optus why dont you just use the weather map as your weather radar all you got to do is drag the map and place it wherever you want

I would think that the problem with using internet weather to drive a weather radar is that you would no longer have a radar. This would be a good simulation of what the Garmins do with XM weather or what ever it is they have but it wouldn't be a radar at all. Reading a radar screen is a bit of an art as I understand it because of clutter, shadowing and so on. The information fed to the screen by an actual radar would be far different from a regular precipitation map from the internet. It would still be very handy, but fundamentally different. To mimic the behavior of a radar the gauge would have to take into account aircraft pitch, speed, altitude and heading and then augment the internet data displayed to give the same image that a radar would for a real radar simulation. It is probably with in the realm of possibilities but probably not worth it.

Ironically since using AS2012 not once have I needed a weather radar. Literally not came across any CB's or anything enroute - which is ironic because with FSX' 'Real world weather' they pop up at least 1/4 flights.

If this is what you want to do you can get a radar from NEXRAD and put it in your plane. But when you get close to that cell and go around it it won't be outside your window. For that matter you can change course on the FMC without the radar (reroute for a sick passenger lol)

 

Thanks,

Ron

 

Hi Ron,

 

thanks for that mate, actually I have just heard from Stephen at Opus that they are planing a similar addon, except this will show the actual weather outside the cockpit! Great news.

There is another factor to remember. Modelling of weather is not just down to the weather generator sim based or external, including settings in FSUIPC. They all have to "agree". With storms comes icing and for that you must "allow" icing both in FSUIPC and in your weather programme. If you use only the Sim weather generator you must set it to "severe" otherwise nothing will happen. In addition you must also include tables 1513, 1518 and 1519 in your airfile.

 

+1, PMDG is sometimes taking realism a bit too seriously. A weather just for eye candy would already be great. And if you use a good live weather program like Opus, it can even provide you global data of the weather being in near you, nothing accurate, but global.

 

I've also discovered plenty of inaccuracies in the terrain radar, but honestly I wouldn't care less (as long as it's not foggy...).

I agree with your realism point in the first paragraph but you haven't found any errors with the "terrain radar". EGPWS isn't a radar. It uses a terrain height database and GPS position to display relative terrain height. PMDG use such a database, they don't read the terrain matrix in your FSX installation. So any discrepancy you notice is not an error.

 

I've definitely seen clouds that did not have visible precipitation when flying into them show up as radar targets in that particular addon. I suspect it's working just like other FSX radars by trying to make guesses on where the precipitation is based on cloud type, temperature, dew point etc. It is 100% not possible to see where actual precipitation is in FSX because precipitation isn't a "real" thing in the sim - it's a graphical effect that exists in a cone around the airplane.

FSX certainly doesn't know if precipitation is in a cloud, but a weather radar simulation can decide which ones have it and which don't. It doesn't matter to the user that this is an arbitrary decision as long as rain somewhere in a cloud makes sense in the conditions. The sim pilot can then choose to go round the stronger rain returns, in which case they feel they did a good job. Or they can fly through the displayed "storm" and feel the effects if the wxr simulation back drives rain and turbulence accordingly. Either way a realistic experience is possible.

 

It can never be real in the sense that actual storms are correctly detected. But it can represent a convincing and coordinated whether representation. FSX is a simulation, not an emulation.

I would think that the problem with using internet weather to drive a weather radar is that you would no longer have a radar. This would be a good simulation of what the Garmins do with XM weather or what ever it is they have but it wouldn't be a radar at all. Reading a radar screen is a bit of an art as I understand it because of clutter, shadowing and so on. The information fed to the screen by an actual radar would be far different from a regular precipitation map from the internet. It would still be very handy, but fundamentally different. To mimic the behavior of a radar the gauge would have to take into account aircraft pitch, speed, altitude and heading and then augment the internet data displayed to give the same image that a radar would for a real radar simulation. It is probably with in the realm of possibilities but probably not worth it.

 

This is another extremely good point here. Real radar use takes a lot of practice to get down and we really aren't in the business of making simplifications of such a complicated real world system. Would people have liked it if we made the NGX's HUD some faked thing that wasn't optically accurate to the real one with the collimation and conformal symbology? We actually said to ourselves that if we couldn't make it work like the real life one we weren't even going to put it in because it is basically useless without those features - the whole point of it is to make the symbology reflect what you're seeing out the window, otherwise it's useless.

 

This claim I've seen some of you making that that since FSX is all a simulation, nothing in it is truly accurate and we should just add a faked radar doesn't hold water with us. We aren't "faking" other systems in the airplane - mathematically they're operating just like their real world counterparts. There's simulated fluid flow in our fuel and hydraulic lines and the sensors and valves/pumps respond to it. It's a false analogy being made - if it was not even possible to simulate/detect fuel flow or air over the wings or whatever in FSX, then you'd have a point but what we're saying about precipitation is not the same thing.

 

 

EDIT:

I think that's enough on this topic for now actually - nothing that's said in these types of threads is going to change our mind on this particular topic, it's been beaten to death.