Pmdg No Rain Effect On Windshield?

[77west 139]

For such an advanced plane, why does the rain not hit the windshield during bad weather? 

 

This flaw / inaccuracy destroys flying in bad weather and makes the windshield wipers completely redundant. Also, I couldn't give a d*** about animations such as red brakes on the 777 when there is no wind shield rain effect.

 

So, can you please implement this feature in the next patch?

 

Yip, PMDG will just quickly implement it for you.

 

NOT.

 

Before calling out a flaw, maybe do some research? They cant just add a major feature in "the next patch"

 

And you need to sign... oh no wait I am not going down this path again and being told off.

[kevinh 409]

One way of doing animated rain in FSX:

 

 

Just a one-time, model-specific affair though. Doesn't look quite convincing, especially on side windows and was a P*** to set up.

 

I only use a static "rain drop" bitmap on the windows now and it works well enough without requiring too much effort on my part.

The best thing is that it doesn't require much magic with FSX-specific materials and thus it can also be used in FS9 models.

 

 

It is, of course, not changeable by the end user (save for the rain drop bitmap) or transferrable to other models.

I've never found FS9's giant raindrop effect very realistic so I don't miss it in FSX. Your static rain bitmap looks like a good compromise. Presumably this changes depending on whether the wiper is on or not.

[Zuendholz 50]

And you need to sign... oh no wait I am not going down this path again and being told off.

 

Don't waste your time with this special windmill.

 

@Topic Starter:  I think it would impact the VAS too much. 

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Settle down, all you "Captains Happy"!  

 

The topic starter opened his thread in the FSX forum - that's where he's not required to jump through all those full real name thingy hoops ...   B)

[n4gix 4,947]

Settle down, all you "Captains Happy"!  

 

The topic starter opened his thread in the FSX forum - that's where he's not required to jump through all those full real name thingy hoops ...   B)

Yes, this thread began life in the FSX forum, then was moved to the PMDG forum, then back to the FSX forum, and now -once again- is back in the PMDG forum!

 

The whole thread seems to be suffering from a real identity crisis...

[Bjoern 1,157]

I've never found FS9's giant raindrop effect very realistic so I don't miss it in FSX. Your static rain bitmap looks like a good compromise. Presumably this changes depending on whether the wiper is on or not.

 

Yup. Depending on ambient conditions it also manages to impair outside vision quite a bit. With flood lights on at night, you're basically flying blind during rain.

 

 

 

 

Mods:

A warning for a rather harmless abbreviation?

[vr-pilot 11]

Biggest problem I see is the rain would have to be very realistic for this to happen, especially when landing. Something like this real cockpit footage:

 

At least to where it's not just a nice effect but obstructs view.

 

Now...Dovetail has a decent rain and snow effect. But I doubt they will add it to FSX. Maybe their new product.

I think this crew should have deviated at least 10 DEG to the right when airborne asap. Otherwise the likelyhood of making a huge hole in the ground is quite big.

On topic: Yes, Train Simulator 2014 has nice RN VFX, but I prefer to go by plane...

[willywonka 36]

 

 

I think this crew should have deviated at least 10 DEG to the right when airborne asap. Otherwise the likelyhood of making a huge hole in the ground is quite big.

Are you sure you have enough information to make that kind of judgement?

[Slayer 190]

I too miss VC raindrops especially after I fire up Xplane and see that it works fine in there with virtually zero FPS impact on a high quality airliner like the 757.....

 

Yes the raindrop slideshow animations are expensive performance wise  but my understanding is that MS removed it because it's basically a hack anyways and this animation caused problems with the higher refresh rate they used in the FSX VC 

 

MS wanted the developers to implement VC raindrops via a shader. This would be a much better and realistic solution anyways, just do a Google search for rain shaders and you will see plenty of examples in other games. Really it is a much better solution anyways because for the most part shaders get handled by the GPU so are hardly any performance impact unless you use very old hardware....

 

What it boils down to is very few devs care about making their own rain shader since they can't use the canned animation anymore.

[vr-pilot 11]

 

 

Are you sure you have enough information to make that kind of judgement?

Unless this was not a NASA test flight the crew should not risk to actually enter a storm cell (start of heavy rain with active TS) after take off. Requesting a 10 degrees or more diversion would have a been normal procedure where I live...

 

And yes, I know a little bit about aviation.

[willywonka 36]

 

 

And yes, I know a little bit about aviation.

I didn't question your knowledge of aviation.

 

I question whether you can sit comfortably there at your desk, watch a short youtube video, and instantly know the entire circumstances in the video. You probably don't know the context, (which might include weather briefings, ATC instructions or restrictions, flight conditions, pilots experience, and pilots history), do you?

 

I just don't think it's fair for you to make that judgement, that's all. (Unless you were there )

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Requesting a 10 degrees or more diversion would have a been normal procedure where I live...

 

 

You probably don't know the context, (which might include weather briefings, ATC instructions or restrictions, flight conditions, pilots experience, and pilots history), do you?

 

Looking at it, it didn't seem very turbulent, and they were staying to the right of the red band.  Oddly enough, [a major US carrier] ran a pilot program (pun intended), encouraging pilots to help ATC (and therefore the airline) by being pathfinders for currently closed routes.  Routes may be closed (by the FAA) because of weather.  If the weather clearly dissipates, it'll reopen, but in cases where they're unsure, they may ask for airlines/pilots to be pathfinders.  [said major US carrier] has E-Turb (enhanced turbulence depiction) installed in their 737s, so they encouraged pilots to be pathfinders with the newer technology, both to test it out, and to help re-open routes.

 

In doing so, [said major US carrier] found that some of the worst turbulence is not always associated with strong precip returns.

 

That being said, I wouldn't intentionally steer toward red returns, but at the same time, I won't trick myself into thinking that red returns are the most damaging, or dangerous.  CAT is a thing, too, and it can be rather damaging on its own.  No red returns associated there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_826_(1997)

[vr-pilot 11]

I question whether you can sit comfortably there at your desk, watch a short youtube video, and instantly know the entire circumstances in the video. You probably don't know the context, (which might include weather briefings, ATC instructions or restrictions, flight conditions, pilots experience, and pilots history), do you?

 

You are right. I don't know the exact conditions and I like watching YouTube videos about aviation while drinking a nice cup of coffee... B)

My core concern watching this video is "risk avoidance" and departing in or extremely close to a storm cell is a risk. If you take a risk your safety redundancy is reduced.

I watched this video more closely and at 2:40 the CPTN (PM) turns both Engine Start Switches to the left. So he degrades the mode from FLT to CONT or even from CONT to OFF/AUTO. (As there is just one click each and his hand seems to leave the switches at the vertical position it might be the latter.) The Ignition Select Switch seems to be in the "Left" position. Using only one or even no igniter under these conditions is a bad idea because an engine flame out could happen: 

Listed below are the 737NG Engine Start Switches modes and what they do (roughly) in conjunction with the Ignition Select Switch (IGN_L/BOTH/IGN_R):

GRD: selected igniter/s used for ground engine start (both used for starter assisted inflight starts)

OFF/AUTO**: no igniters used, engine is self igniting (for CLB/CRZ/DES) *

CONT: selected igniter/s used (for take off (and e.g. CLB/DES below 10000ft) without precipitation) *

FLT: both igniters used (for moderate/severe precipitation operation, windmill starts in flight)

* modes additionally contain a "low N2" or "flame out"-detection which will activate both igniters.

** AUTO option activates selected igniters with flaps not up below 18000ft ALT or EAI on.

Well, with flaps already up and departing during a summer TS with EAI off (apparently: short armed shirts) both AUTO options won't help them. 

 

So there is the risk PLUS a (probable) handling error by the crew. Than the third factor would simply be "luck" that there is no engine flame out crossing/passing the storm cell. For this scenario the 737NG has the "FLT mode" (Auto-Relight=both igniters on) automatically activated when a flame out is detected. But a flame out during climb at approx. 4000ft AGL with TS from 9 to 12 o'clock and amber terrain from 1 to 3 o'clock in severe WX conditions is "difficult" to handle. The QRH states that "at high altitudes or in heavy precipitation" engine restart will take extra time. So summer+rain are contributing factors to an unsuccessful engine restart...

Last but not least my interpretation of the WXR footprint tells me, that the crew had not waited for "that thing" to pass by, rather than being in a hurry to depart before the cell "comes in"...

(There are even flashes from the right which means they depart inbetween TS...) Being in a hurry is o.k. but it should never degrade safety concerns.

(Am I over reacting? I think not   )

Remark: AFAIK airline's SOP normally switch between left and right igniters by flight number (left=odd, right=even) or alternating from the last state: e.g. switching from right (current state) to left just before engine start. I have never heard of the actual use of "Ignition Select Switch=Both". So even the likelyhood of having both igniters on in CONT mode should be almost "zero". 

Does anyone else have an other info on that?

EDIT: "starting the day with the right igniter as this will test the functionality of the AC standby bus..." 

 

In doing so, [said major US carrier] found that some of the worst turbulence is not always associated with strong precip returns.

 

Does this mean that the strong turbulence was predicted by the "E-Turb (enhanced turbulence depiction)" or was it indicated by spilled coffee in the back :unsure:  ?

 

AND: was the "airlines/pilots-to-pathfinders" programme also presented to the passengers before it was put into place/they boarded the plane?

 

Greetings,

Claus

Edited July 30, 2014 by vr-pilot

[~Craig~ 10]

Brake temp soaking and wheel well heating is closer to high-fidelity system simulation than any animation on the windshield.   B)

 

That's just an opinion.    We all have our own definition of "high fidelity system simulation".   :smile:

 

Personally, the fact that I fly from the cockpit, leads me to prefer effects that are visible in the cockpit, rather than the wheel well.   :wink:

[nathanpinard 0]

I would like to automatically defecate in my pants in an emergency. Authentic for sure.