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.

I have no concerns. I'm stating challenges. If Aerosoft figures it out, a challenge other developers will face is licensing. Fact.

 

How customers will behave because of this additional cost (if passed to the consumer by the licensor) is another challenge to be addressed. Fact. That's basic Econ.

 

Aerosoft has not made the radar look pretty yet. Fact

 

Do they know how? I don't know. I don't think they know currently, though you seem to be assuming they know and just haven't done it yet. In that case, why release images of the unfinished product of it is known how to make it look more polished? Also, note the "probably" in his sentence in how to solve it. That, to me, points to them not knowing (yet).

 

 

 

Does this mean I doubt them entirely? No.

 

Let me say it again: no, I do not doubt that they could probably refine what they currently have.

 

And a third time, because some here seem to be too dense to actually read what I've written instead of what they'd like to infer: Aerosoft seems to be capable of overcoming their current roadblock (FSX Grid Precip Data).

 

 

 

What I'm saying is:

This is not the product everyone thinks it is right now. People are getting excited and asking developers to implement weather radar now.

 

Now is not the time.

 

When Aerosoft, or whoever else, can show a clearly working and convincing (smoothed, tilt and and do on - shadow would be a plus, but I'll live without it) radar, that's when we should all go busting down doors.

 

Right now, all of you are really coming across like a bunch of people trying to sell airline tickets at Otto Lilienthal's glider demo flights.

 

Let it mature first.

 

Don't count chickens before they hatch, and so on. I mentioned similar cautions before ASN came out. Did I say they couldn't do it? No. It clearly turned into a nice product. I just wasn't going to invest (monetarily or simply buying into the hype) until I saw the final product.

(...)

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. 

(...)

 

 

Currently the Aerosoft wx radar is being implemented in the Airbus 318/319. After that release the A320/321 will be updated at no extra cost.

 

The A318/319 will sell exactly at the same price the A320/321 have been doing.

 

Sorry for posting this in the PMDG forum. But I sensed someone (sometwo) begging for clarification ...

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.

Except now the answer can no longer be "it can't be done" if Aerosoft, and the other unnamed developers on the same track, are to be believed. It always could be done, albeit only in a quasi-realistic way, and now it seems FSX has the data after all.

 

Still, you are right that the final answer has not been found, but this is a big step along the road.

 

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.

Obviously the storms aren't going to be realistic unless the weather engine you use has the same inputs and creates storm effects accordingly. However, simply having realistic storm returns is all you need for the WXR to be useful. You wouldn't take a real 777 through a storm cell to see what it feels like, and a working WXR simulation should be used in exactly the same way. Avoid the bad weather that it presents and it will be a very immersive and realistic experience.

I have no concerns. I'm stating challenges. If Aerosoft figures it out, a challenge other developers will face is licensing. Fact.

 

How customers will behave because of this additional cost (if passed to the consumer by the licensor) is another challenge to be addressed. Fact. That's basic Econ.

 

Aerosoft has not made the radar look pretty yet. Fact

 

Do they know how? I don't know. I don't think they know currently, though you seem to be assuming they know and just haven't done it yet. In that case, why release images of the unfinished product of it is known how to make it look more polished? Also, note the "probably" in his sentence in how to solve it. That, to me, points to them not knowing (yet).

 

 

 

Does this mean I doubt them entirely? No.

 

Let me say it again: no, I do not doubt that they could probably refine what they currently have.

 

And a third time, because some here seem to be too dense to actually read what I've written instead of what they'd like to infer: Aerosoft seems to be capable of overcoming their current roadblock (FSX Grid Precip Data).

 

 

 

What I'm saying is:

This is not the product everyone thinks it is right now. People are getting excited and asking developers to implement weather radar now.

 

Now is not the time.

 

When Aerosoft, or whoever else, can show a clearly working and convincing (smoothed, tilt and and do on - shadow would be a plus, but I'll live without it) radar, that's when we should all go busting down doors.

 

Right now, all of you are really coming across like a bunch of people trying to sell airline tickets at Otto Lilienthal's glider demo flights.

 

Let it mature first.

 

Don't count chickens before they hatch, and so on. I mentioned similar cautions before ASN came out. Did I say they couldn't do it? No. It clearly turned into a nice product. I just wasn't going to invest (monetarily or simply buying into the hype) until I saw the final product.

Why not post you challenges on the Aerosoft forum. I have no idea whether their investment will be successful. My point is that they are willing to try and are backing it up with money.

 

As this is a PMDG hosted forum I suggest that if you feel the need to continue our dialogue, that you do so on the Aerosoft forum.

 

olli 4740 thank you for your information re Aerosoft's Airbus add ons

Why not post you challenges on the Aerosoft forum. I have no idea whether their investment will be successful. My point is that they are willing to try and are backing it up with money.

 

As this is a PMDG hosted forum I suggest that if you feel the need to continue our dialogue, that you do so on the Aerosoft forum.

...because they're a business. I'm 99% sure they already know the challenges a lot better than I do, especially because I was in the group of "it can't be done" people.

 

I was simply reiterating them because people seem to be under the impression that they've already solved all the issues and will imminently release a workable radar. Mathijs' post states otherwise: challenges lie ahead. I simply translated because people seem to have glossed over that part in their excitement.

Except now the answer can no longer be "it can't be done" if Aerosoft, and the other unnamed developers on the same track, are to be believed. It always could be done, albeit only in a quasi-realistic way, and now it seems FSX has the data after all.

 

Still, you are right that the final answer has not been found, but this is a big step along the road.

True. If anyone needs me, I'll be downstairs eating crows with "it can't be done" written on them. Haha...

 

I'm still hesitant to see the end result of how they refine it. The FSX data is clearly there, but it's very rudimentary as the pictures show.

...because they're a business. I'm 99% sure they already know the challenges a lot better than I do, especially because I was in the group of "it can't be done" people.

 

I was simply reiterating them because people seem to be under the impression that they've already solved all the issues and will imminently release a workable radar. Mathijs' post states otherwise: challenges lie ahead. I simply translated because people seem to have glossed over that part in their excitement.

 

True. If anyone needs me, I'll be downstairs eating crows with "it can't be done" written on them. Haha...

 

I'm still hesitant to see the end result of how they refine it. The FSX data is clearly there, but it's very rudimentary as the pictures show.

In the first post made by Mr Kok it's abundantly clear that not all the issues have been solved. To be blunt I am at a loss to understand why you seem to think people will have difficulty in comprehending that. Once again I think we are all capable of understanding that "it's very rudimentary". To assume that just because people are excited about the possibility of a working weather radar that they lose all ability to understand written English is at best baffling and at worst arrogant.

 

I think it's time to stop our dialogue as this is not a suitable forum for it. So once again I suggest that if you wish to reply to what I have said, that you do so over on the Aerosoft forum or by a PM.   

True. If anyone needs me, I'll be downstairs eating crows with "it can't be done" written on them. Haha...

No need to go that far. Not fair on the crows either. A hair shirt will be enough. :wink:

 

To be honest, I never disputed the logic behind the "it can't be done" position. My view was always that a realistic representation was possible despite this. So I'm as surprised as anyone to hear it can be done after all. Hopefully now this subject will be treated in a more open minded way on this forum.

 

I'm still hesitant to see the end result of how they refine it. The FSX data is clearly there, but it's very rudimentary as the pictures show.

Replacing the array of squares with overlapping circles might be a start. It's really not surprising the FSX weather definition is in squares. A grid system is the simplest way to divide any region. It's like looking at a pixellated image. Some creative processing is going to be needed to make it look realistic.

Guys,

 

Many other developers have come forward with similar claims to this one over the years. In all of those cases people in the community ran around with their hair on fire proclaiming that the holy grail had been found but the proof never quite materialized. Given that experience I think it makes far more sense to sit back and wait for the empirical evidence here. Seeing a screenshot with some green pixels on it isn't sufficient. Many developers (including us) have already run down this road and found what we thought was a precipitation map only to find that a 2D-array of large block positions was not sufficient to use as an actual WX radar in the way they truly operate in the real world.

 

If Aerosoft really did it here then that will become clear immediately when it's released. Let's wait for that instead of deciding that they did before then.

 

 

.  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. 

 

You might be surprised, Kyle.

 

You know how FSDT seems to do the impossible with their sceneries, shadows changing with time and weather, scenery reacting properly to whatever environmental variables?

In it's core, it's not difficult. In fact, I personally was able to go from near-zero programming experience (zero C++) to prototype in just a couple months, and then to marketable product in a couple more. That was 7 years after the release of FSX, and the possibility was there from the start, except nobody used it - just Umberto and FSDT.  And scenery developers wanted it, too. Lots of talk went about how to implement a similar system in FSX (there was a way in FS9). 

 

Point is, sometimes pioneering minds don't quite cut it. Sometimes you have to have someone who just figures it out randomly.

The one who says it can't be done should not interrupt the one doing it.