I am disappointed by the way some members treat people who ask legitimate questions. Many people are new to FSX or PMDG. They may not follow this forum like we do. They may not know the history of weather radar and PMDG. There is no reason to be so rude. I assure you, if you asked me a question about one of the many areas I have knowledge, I would not treat you like you are stupid.

It's not the question. It's the tone. The OP should try not being so belligerent. That way, he won't sound like an idiot.

A suggestion: if PMDG don't want to do a weather RADAR for the reasons stated previously, why don't they do like they did with the J41, and allow the RealityXP weather RADAR to be displayed in the ND if it is installed? PMDG don't have to write one, and those of us with 3rd party products can use them with the 777.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

I am more focused on the later responses.  We are about to receive a magnificent plane.  Many new people will be coming to this forum.  Even experienced FSX pilots may not be familiar with all of the fine details of the PMDG 777.  Expecting every new person to search the massive volume of post is unrealistic in my humble opinion.  Calling people trolls because the do not do things the way you want them to is wrong.  Experienced enthusiasts need to show more patience.  You are supposed to be captains.  It is just that simple.

I am disappointed by the way some members treat people who ask legitimate questions. Many people are new to FSX or PMDG. They may not follow this forum like we do. They may not know the history of weather radar and PMDG. There is no reason to be so rude. I assure you, if you asked me a question about one of the many areas I have knowledge, I would not treat you like you are stupid.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions, and I have seen many instances of individuals who are obviously new to the hobby and/or these forums innocently making inquiries about subjects that have been discussed multiple times before. Sometimes the veterans are a bit too quick to flame newbies for not using the search function.

 

But, I honestly don't think that is the case here. The entire tone of the O.P.'s original post in this thread strikes me as being deliberately provocative. IMHO, he knows perfectly well what the issues are, regarding the inability to produce an accurate weather radar emulation, and seems to have a pretty big chip on his shoulder regarding PMDG's business practices.

 

The post reeks of trolling.

Jim,

 

You may be right.   I have been using various versions Microsoft Flight Simulator for 27 years.  I am very grateful for what PMDG has given us.  Their trademark is innovation and "doing it right".  They will only produce weather radar that meets their very high standards.  I cannot fault them for that.  This is a very exciting time.

A suggestion: if PMDG don't want to do a weather RADAR for the reasons stated previously, why don't they do like they did with the J41, and allow the RealityXP weather RADAR to be displayed in the ND if it is installed? PMDG don't have to write one, and those of us with 3rd party products can use them with the 777.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

I would assume (assume emphasised) that because the JS41 had a seperate display unit for the Weather Radar, it was alot easier to incorporate it in. With a ND, there is of course information to be placed ontop of the weather radar image, and therefore I assume it would be harder to merge the two together. The unit in the JS41 also seemed to replicate that of the WXR500 which is modelled by RealityXP. The WXR1200, that most T7's are fitted out with obviously has alot more features than that of the 500, and I assume PMDG wan't to keep the aircraft as realistic as possible.

 

But anyway I still agree with my original opinion that if you want to divert around weather, just look out your big wide windows infront of you and move to your heading bug to deviate as required. No need for a WXR at all. Zilch. Zero.

In day time, maybe, but night time, no.

 

It was only a suggestion anyway.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

So, let me get this straight.  PMDG is developing a model of a 160 million dollar airliner that is has a cockpit and procedures that are about 95% accurate to the real plane, and you are getting bent out of shape because it doesn't have weather radar (for the reasons stated so many times it has become tedious to revisiti), and because it doesn't have a taxi camera?  

 

Seriously?

 

The level of detail and accomplishment in these products, to bring real world procedures to a $60 flight sim program, is staggering, and you are complaining because it doesn't have a taxi camera?

 

Did you dump your last super model girlfriend because she had a birthmark on her thigh?

 

 

Hi all. Was just wondering how come PMDG is selective on what they want to model as "realistic" and what they do not want. Back to the much talked about weather radar. Saw many postings by potential PMDG B777 buyers asking about this and the answer is always "not possible to model that accurately in flight sim". I recall that they had a so called PAYWARE B747-800 extension to the B747 queen of the sky using the B747-400 cockpit. How accurate was that? Also no official response from PMDG on the taxi camera for the B777-300s. Heck not even if there is ever going to be a B777-200ER or B777-200 or B777-300. "Work still goes on huh?".Next thing we are going to hear from PMDG may be something like "not possible to accurately model the taxi camera due to the constraints of flight sim".......


Regards,
Darren Liew

 

 

Did you dump your last super model girlfriend because she had a birthmark on her thigh?

 

Blimey, how did you know about that? I thought I hadn't told anyone!

 

Cheers

 

Neil

Hi all. Was just wondering how come PMDG is selective on what they want to model as "realistic" and what they do not want. Back to the much talked about weather radar. Saw many postings by potential PMDG B777 buyers asking about this and the answer is always "not possible to model that accurately in flight sim". I recall that they had a so called PAYWARE B747-800 extension to the B747 queen of the sky using the B747-400 cockpit. How accurate was that? Also no official response from PMDG on the taxi camera for the B777-300s. Heck not even if there is ever going to be a B777-200ER or B777-200 or B777-300. "Work still goes on huh?".Next thing we are going to hear from PMDG may be something like "not possible to accurately model the taxi camera due to the constraints of flight sim".......

 

 

Regards,

Darren Liew

 

This topic has been discussed to death. The horse has not only been beaten to death but it has been run over multiple times by a large van and then some. In other words the horse has become one with the road. Your question may have been valid at some point in the past but so many people have beat you to the punch. 

 

I am disappointed by the way some members treat people who ask legitimate questions.  Many people are new to FSX or PMDG.  They may not follow this forum like we do.  They may not know the history of weather radar and PMDG.  There is no reason to be so rude.  I assure you, if you asked me a question about one of the many areas I have knowledge, I would not treat you like you are stupid.

 

Yes some can be harsh, however, I am new here (check posts, I think it's 20 or so) and that doesn't prevent me from using the search function. Also, define legitimate. Is a question still legitimate in this forum if it has been asked and answered multiple times before and can be brought up again with use of the search function? Perhaps I am being presumptuous but it only seems like common sense to do your research to the best of your ability prior to asking a question. I would like to think that using the search function is within the abilities of the majority. Don't be hesitant to ask, just be calculated. Think "has this been asked before".  

 

I am more focused on the later responses.  We are about to receive a magnificent plane.  Many new people will be coming to this forum.  Even experienced FSX pilots may not be familiar with all of the fine details of the PMDG 777.  Expecting every new person to search the massive volume of post is unrealistic in my humble opinion.  Calling people trolls because the do not do things the way you want them to is wrong.  Experienced enthusiasts need to show more patience.  You are supposed to be captains.  It is just that simple.

 

Again, I am new here and that does not prevent me from using the search function. There are certain posts like this that are so very quick to ask before doing their homework. I think one needs to view it in the eyes of the rest of the forum as well. The search bar is literally inches above the main forum and is so easily accessible. I think the main frustration from some of the forum members is that time and time again the search function is ignored and the repetition of questions already answered goes on.  

This is the truth.  If you'd like to go into more detail about why, you are welcome to browse the forums as the others have suggested.  This topic has been discussed at length, more than a few times, rather passionately.  Beyond that, the attempts to justify your stance (visual models are not fully realistic and they've made those, so a radar of compromised realism should also be okay) have also been discussed, at length, in those threads.

 

If you'd like to see the future of your thread here, you should go look at the others.

 

 

 

 

Firstly, it's the 747-8 (no zeroes).

 

Secondly, it was very clearly stated that it would be a visual model update only.  The ability to create a known aircraft model from known data is much easier than trying to create a weather radar from data that doesn't exist.  They felt like adding an extra model and sound set for the people who wanted it because they apparently had the resources to do so.  Their goal really wasn't realism in that case.  If you'd like an unrealistic radar, there are already several products out there that have standalone weather radar applications.

 

 

 

 

Really?  You honestly believe that they just have a whole bunch of "Not Possible to Implement" cards in their pockets for use and time they feel like it?

 

I can't really recall many times where they've used it as an excuse.  Heck, even the radar issue isn't so much an excuse, as much as it's the reality.

 

 

 

 

haha - I almost didn't respond because I figured it was just a question about whether or not radar would be in the sim.  I then read the initial post and figured I'd jump in (yet attempt to be tame).

whats wrong kyle -_- that was very peaceful hahah i expected a more exciting answer to this, you should give it another try, this post got me really annoyed  :ph34r:

Not really. I am more concerned about the way they say things. Like mentioned above, PMDG obviously felt that there was a market for a visual extension of the 747-8 for flight sim. There was none for a "visual extension" of an equally non accurate weather radar? As others mentioned, this has been discussed to death on these forums so there is a mighty bit of interest in this also. Maybe it is hard to integrate the weather radar into the ND that is why PMDG is not keen in doing it and how much can they charge for it? Not profit making?

 

Regards,

Darren 

So, let me get this straight.  PMDG is developing a model of a 160 million dollar airliner that is has a cockpit and procedures that are about 95% accurate to the real plane, and you are getting bent out of shape because it doesn't have weather radar (for the reasons stated so many times it has become tedious to revisiti), and because it doesn't have a taxi camera?  

 

Seriously?

 

The level of detail and accomplishment in these products, to bring real world procedures to a $60 flight sim program, is staggering, and you are complaining because it doesn't have a taxi camera?

 

Did you dump your last super model girlfriend because she had a birthmark on her thigh?

 

Please god, make it stop....

Please god, make it stop....

 

I just ignore it, problem solved.