http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/78605-weather-radar-work-in-progress/

 

Is there any hope for us?

 

Robert

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/434187-weather-radar-is-possible/   :biggrin:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/421144-can-pmdg-work-with-hifi-to-bring-us-a-working-weather-radar/page-6

Nah...let it come...everyone has to trumpet their news over and over again.

 

...just like we had to answer the weather radar question over and over again.

I don't want to seem like a downer on one of the biggest names in the FS world Kyle but given what I heard from the horses mouth (another big name) this idea of no precipitation in FSX other than in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft is an incorrect assumption based on incorrect info from an Aces developer.

 

 

but given what I heard from the horses mouth (another big name) this idea of no precipitation in FSX other than in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft is an incorrect assumption based on incorrect info from an Aces developer.

 

Not sure who said that, but it was actually based on fact from trying to pull the data from the sim.  There was none to pull because rain was only an effect triggered around the immediate vicinity of the aircraft.  If it were truly an incorrect assumption, I think people would've found a solution a lot earlier than now.  We have a lot of pioneering minds here in the community.  It's not often that a programmer simply drops a pursuit because of something someone said.  I speak from personal experience (though more on a general data level than a programming level).

 

The current solutions are workarounds to escape this limitation.  They aren't because someone finally decided to dig for data.

Not sure who said that, but it was actually based on fact from trying to pull the data from the sim.  There was none to pull because rain was only an effect triggered around the immediate vicinity of the aircraft.  If it were truly an incorrect assumption, I think people would've found a solution a lot earlier than now.  We have a lot of pioneering minds here in the community.  It's not often that a programmer simply drops a pursuit because of something someone said.  I speak from personal experience (though more on a general data level than a programming level).

 

The current solutions are workarounds to escape this limitation.  They aren't because someone finally decided to dig for data.

Kyle have you read the thread over on the Aerosoft forum? If so do  you disagree with Mr Kok's opening post and especially this part: "We found a way to access the data and what you see now matches the radar display"?

I have been trained in numerous full bridge simulators and in the maritime world our radars are way better than anything you have in aviation minus military radars ( i.e. Plotting solutions, tracking multiple contacts, overlaying routes, image quality, navigating with radar alone and numerous other features.) I can tell you simulators are horrible at rendering radar I have yet to see one that made it look realistic, and looking at aerosofts radar return and googling RW A320 wx radar images there return doesn't look any better. This would be a great feature but if a multi million dollar simulator can't simulate it correctly I find it hard to believe a 40$ one can.

 

 

Ash Keelson

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ash... Please read the entire topic in the Aerosoft forum. Mathijs explains very clearly why it doesn't look like the real thing right now. The problem previously was not to have it looking like a real WXR, the problem was that there were no moisture returns. In reality, up until now, the available WXR was just a glorified cloud map. It had the look of the real thing, but far from the function.

IF what Mathijs says is true, now the function can also be implemented. That would mean a huge leap forward in realism, especially since it can also be done without ASN.

Also, WXR doesn't need to be THAT precise. You're not going to "thread the needle", so there is no reason to know exactly at what meter a CB-cloud begins. You'll steer well clear of it, so it being somewhat less precise is not that big a deal, not even in the real world.

However, IF what they say is true, detecting moisture even in standard FSX could mean a big improvement to the realism in the sim.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I did read the post and understand the point you are attempting to make but it doesn't look realistic or act like a real radar. Even the Ifly and Q400 demo didn't look that great either.

Kyle have you read the thread over on the Aerosoft forum? If so do  you disagree with Mr Kok's opening post and especially this part: "We found a way to access the data and what you see now matches the radar display"?

 

Yes, I have.  Did you look at the pictures and Mathijs' own words about the drawbacks?  There are no rain shadows, elevation isn't fully modeled, and the resolution is rather poor (rain doesn't appear as square block in the real world - FSX limitation, though).

 

So, yes, I stood corrected when Johnathan took it to PMs to help explain the reality of the situation, and some of the method.  Thanks to him, I've seen a little more of "the light."  Still, I find the trumpeting and fervor around all of this rather premature.  There are still glaring issues related to making a weather radar that's up to aviation standard.

 

Too many people are running arond forums, posting links like this is in its final form and trumpeting "LET'S IMPLEMENT THIS IN EVERYTHING!!!!!!!"

 

No, let's not.  Let's wait and see where this goes.  It's a vast leap forward, that's for sure.  It's not to the level it should be, though.  Plus, who's to say those who have figured all of this out will want to just hand the method over to other developers?  I doubt they will, so how much is everybody actually willing to accept in an increase of the purchase price of various add-ons that incorporate this through a licensed approach?

 

TL;DR:

Breakthrough?  Yes.

Implementation-ready?  Nope!

I'm still curios as to how PMDG users are navigating around CB at night? Is everyone still just ploughing through thunderstorms? I was under the impression storms are now dangerous if using ASN.

 

Personally I would like to see any sort or radar simulation. I had countless problems maintaing altitude in the PMDG 747 near storms, PSS 777 radar was

Crude but helped enormously when it came to avoiding CB

I'm still curios as to how PMDG users are navigating around CB at night? Is everyone still just ploughing through thunderstorms? I was under the impression storms are now dangerous if using ASN.

 

Personally I would like to see any sort or radar simulation. I had countless problems maintaing altitude in the PMDG 747 near storms, PSS 777 radar was

Crude but helped enormously when it came to avoiding CB

 

I tried plowing through a couple of big storms in the mid west with the 777 on purpose and there was no real consequences to it. I am using ASN and really like it, but I want the WX radar to be a tool I can use to make tactical decisions all the radars so far just seem like eye candy and not a critical tool. I really hope they figure this out ASN is by far my favorite WX engine to date.

Yes, I have.  Did you look at the pictures and Mathijs' own words about the drawbacks?  There are no rain shadows, elevation isn't fully modeled, and the resolution is rather poor (rain doesn't appear as square block in the real world - FSX limitation, though).

 

So, yes, I stood corrected when Johnathan took it to PMs to help explain the reality of the situation, and some of the method.  Thanks to him, I've seen a little more of "the light."  Still, I find the trumpeting and fervor around all of this rather premature.  There are still glaring issues related to making a weather radar that's up to aviation standard.

 

Too many people are running arond forums, posting links like this is in its final form and trumpeting "LET'S IMPLEMENT THIS IN EVERYTHING!!!!!!!"

 

No, let's not.  Let's wait and see where this goes.  It's a vast leap forward, that's for sure.  It's not to the level it should be, though.  Plus, who's to say those who have figured all of this out will want to just hand the method over to other developers?  I doubt they will, so how much is everybody actually willing to accept in an increase of the purchase price of various add-ons that incorporate this through a licensed approach?

 

TL;DR:

Breakthrough?  Yes.

Implementation-ready?  Nope!

To quote Mr Kok once again 

"What is NOT yet done is to make it look good. As you see the weather is created in square blocks in FSX, we need to smooth these out, probably combine it with some other data etc. We also need to look at effects like one front hiding the one behind it and things like that. The images however show a fully working weather radar in FSX."

 

Of course Aerosoft are aware that it's not ready for implementation but thankfully they are still investing funds in trying to reach that end.

 

Kyle as far as your concern about extra costs. well in the case of Aerosoft's A320 extended there is plenty of scope to increase the price as it currently retails at just under 40 euros which at today's exchange rate is just under 55 dollars. As you know PMDG's 777 costs a shade under 90 dollars. By my calculations that gives them 35 dollars to play with. Many people have bought the 777 so I wouldn't be surprised if people would pay some more for a working weather radar. Of course I have no idea what Aerosoft's business model is, so I don't know whether they will charge anymore and I doubt that you know either. 

 

Kyle if you have concerns and questions about this, why don't you post them on the Aerosoft forum. I would be interested in seeing Aerosoft's reply.

maybe in P3D v2