The Q400 WXR puts randomized green yellow and red shaded areas on the ND which are roughly located where clouds are. Not where rain is.

 

that's wrong. First, there is no way to determine where the clouds actually are in FSX (and it would be wrong trying to do that). Second, the cloud depiction in FSX is limited to 80 miles, while the Q400 wxr shows the weather up to 240 miles.

 

Now, for actual implementation, let me cite our website (product description) :

 

WEATHER RADAR

The Weather Radar is capable of interpolating the weather returns, based on the actual FSX weather, using the FSX Weather Stations reports. The Weather Radar can work with both the FSX Real Weather, and the Weather Environment addons capable of setting the per-station weather. The beam geometry is also simulated in order to depict the weather based upon the aircraft altitude, antenna tilt and the altitude of the weather itself. There is a ground clutter and the weather shadow effects. In addition there is a ground mapping mode simulation, capable of showing the surrounding terrain. The weather clutter in the ground mode is also simulated.

 

As you see, it is nowhere based on the actual drawing of rain or clouds. You can retrieve wheather information from any weather station in FSX, whatever the distance to the aircraft, and check if there is or not raining.

Why are people comparing the NGX and the Q400 as to which is more convincing? Convincing in what way? How do you know that it is convincing? Have you flown a real 737 or Q400? Even sat in the cockpit of one? The Q400 is a Q400 and the 737 is a 737. If you want to do a comparison, compare them against their direct rivals. The only comparison that can be drawn is the "realism of flight" As I had stated before the FDE of the Q400 is a bit more complex and it "feels" more like an actual aircraft flying. Is it perfect? no, is the NGX perfect? no. Systems wise, yes the Q400 has an edge in some areas while the NGX has an advantage in others.

 

One of the features that some have not gotten use to ( and perhaps think its a bug ) is the way you taxi the Q400. But in real life this is the exact way you taxi the aircraft love it or hate it. If some would read the manuals you would see that the option is available to use the tiller in harmony with your yoke or joystick and to have it independant. Let's not forget that there are other websites that  provide manuals  for the Q400 with lots of added information.

 

FDE? Maybe it's better, but so far I've seen some quirks like plane jumping on the parking spot when loading or accessing menus, weird behavior on flaps 45 on landing and so on. It's different, maybe better, but perfect? Not yet.

 

What do you mean by this? Flaps 35 works fine for me, but requires very careful management of speed or it will quickly result in a loss of speed/altitude. Flap 15 is the prefered configuration for landing and is much easier to handle. IMO, there are a few things the Q400 has over the NGX, especially once the PRO version comes out, but they are both at the pinnacle of what is possible for FSX. Of course, the PMDG 777 will be a better comparison when it arrives, as the NGX has been out for well over a year.

 

 

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk HD

that's wrong. First, there is no way to determine where the clouds actually are in FSX (and it would be wrong trying to do that). Second, the cloud depiction in FSX is limited to 80 miles, while the Q400 wxr shows the weather up to 240 miles.

 

Now, for actual implementation, let me cite our website (product description) :

 

WEATHER RADAR

The Weather Radar is capable of interpolating the weather returns, based on the actual FSX weather, using the FSX Weather Stations reports. The Weather Radar can work with both the FSX Real Weather, and the Weather Environment addons capable of setting the per-station weather. The beam geometry is also simulated in order to depict the weather based upon the aircraft altitude, antenna tilt and the altitude of the weather itself. There is a ground clutter and the weather shadow effects. In addition there is a ground mapping mode simulation, capable of showing the surrounding terrain. The weather clutter in the ground mode is also simulated.

 

As you see, it is nowhere based on the actual drawing of rain or clouds. You can retrieve wheather information from any weather station in FSX, whatever the distance to the aircraft, and check if there is or not raining.

 

 

I was playing around with the tilt of the WR last night.  I was flying at low altitude and had quite a bit of green with the tilt at 0.0.. Once I tilted the radar up a bit the screen cleared up..  ( conditions were some clouds but no rain)  

 

Was it ground clutter I was picking up?  

The dash doesn't taxi like most other aircraft (simulated by the joystick rotation/rudder while on ground) and i have no idea why, this is a failure for me.

 

The real Dash 8 Q400 is not steered on the ground by rudder control either, hence why Majestic implemented this feature; in pursuit of realism.   In the real aircraft, the tiller is the only way to steer on the ground, before rudder authority comes in, at 40+kts.

 

...... so I'd love to know how Majestic featuring this, realistically, is a "failure".

 

What I'm reading from a lot of the posts in this thread (not all) is "The Dash 8 doesn't do it the same way as the NGX, (which I like), so it's not as good".    Or people wanting every aircraft to have totally generic features, like the rudder pedals being linked to the nosewheel.    I mean, it may well be more convenient steering the aircraft via pedals, but is it a good thing if add-on manufacturers just deliver "convenience" and "similarity" to other planes' features;  ....even when they're not realistic!

 

I think a lot of people are in too much of a comfort zone with the NGX and will now only judge other aircraft on whether they can be operated in the same was as a 737NG.      

 

...... give it a few months, when we're all virutally type-rated on the Q400.   :wink:

 

I'm not bashing the NGX;   it's awesome;   but it's a lovely change being able to fly something else now, that at least reaches the same levels of fidelity as PMDG do.

 

There are no losers;   we're all winners.

PMDG always!!!!

Two completely different animals which reign in different biotopes. Granted, I am more up to speed on flying the NGX, but I am having fun learning the Dash. Bottom line, I enjoy both aircraft and will continue to do so. 

No-ones mentioned the excellent FSlabs Concorde X which is extremely complex!

 

Its a shame PMDG havent extrated the flight model like the Q400 to improve the frame rate.

@@Vargveum

 

Hi Daniel, great specs you have there!! how is NGX running on it?? have you ever took the FSMMark11 test to measure your performance?

 

Why are people comparing the NGX and the Q400 as to which is more convincing? Convincing in what way? How do you know that it is convincing? Have you flown a real 737 or Q400? Even sat in the cockpit of one? The Q400 is a Q400 and the 737 is a 737. If you want to do a comparison, compare them against their direct rivals. The only comparison that can be drawn is the "realism of flight" As I had stated before the FDE of the Q400 is a bit more complex and it "feels" more like an actual aircraft flying. Is it perfect? no, is the NGX perfect? no. Systems wise, yes the Q400 has an edge in some areas while the NGX has an advantage in others.

 

One of the features that some have not gotten use to ( and perhaps think its a bug ) is the way you taxi the Q400. But in real life this is the exact way you taxi the aircraft love it or hate it. If some would read the manuals you would see that the option is available to use the tiller in harmony with your yoke or joystick and to have it independant. Let's not forget that there are other websites that  provide manuals  for the Q400 with lots of added information.

 

 

Here we go. Very, very difficult to find folks who use some good common sense. Now, this guy I can tell is pretty smart. We cannot compare a 737 with a Dash 8....Come'on guys- use some logic. The same noise happend when the AXE came out. Stop comparing eagles with monkeys. jeje.

Without comparing apples and oranges, one simple test which works for me is this: Does the aircraft give me that warm, fuzzy feeling when flying it. NGX: Check. Q400: Check.   B)

With all due respect, I have to say I find this premise just a little bit silly.

 

Both are high quality, top notch products.  I have gotten many hours of enjoyment out of the NGX, and I know I will get many more out of it.  I have also gotten a few hours of enjoyment out of the Q400, and I know I will also get many more out of it.

 

The ability to fly just about any aircraft in Alaska/Horizon Airlines's fleet with the exact same aircraft in FSX (modulo a good CRJ) is exciting for me.  The fact that both products make the experience the next best thing to actually being in the aircraft itself is a huge plus.  Sometimes, everybody wins.  I think this is one of those times - we simmers all win when we have access to such high quality products.  Kudos to both PMDG and Majestic for delivering the goods.

I'm just happy that there are more high quality add-on developers producing brilliant simulations for us. It's excellent that now we are going to have a wide choice of high quality toys to play with.

This is exactly the thread im looking for. Im not reading it to compare the 737 to the dash 8 or to see which company produced the better simulation. Instead, I am using the quality of the 737 as a baseline to decide if I purchase the q400 or not. If it meets or exceeds the quality of the 737 in most users opinion, then I will likely purchase it. My next buy was going to be the pmdg 777 or fsl a320. But I am currently on the fence in regard to the q400. I welcome comparisons between the two to help me with a decision.

@@fosl

 

Get it. It's from the same star dust the NGX was made from.  ^_^

 

Just the sound of those props.. it's a very, very nice airplane.