Wadaya think?

[Guest lemonadedrinker]

Wow, I've read all these replies and my head is spinning magnetically. Magnetic or true? >>so in this case wrong == real. :-)<< !!confused? you betcha. To try to seem slightly less dense,a question,; when we fly with VORs, NDBs,GPSs, and other radio signals does the variation matter? In fact I've answered my own query as out of range it does matter and it seems better to go with magnetic as there are no calculations to make in converting one from another. Charts and maps are orientated true, with the variation marked, but surely maps in airplanes died out with the advent of newer systems and these are magnetic based. So here's my response. Either.Both.Andy.

[rich135 0]

The seasoned cynical software devloper would anticipate that in the persuit of "real as it gets", the FS team will ultimately toil to implement both, with all the quirks. And at the exact moment this is achieved, the ICAO will move to standarize on one system. :-)

[tgibson 11]

Hi,I do use the weather dialogs, quite a bit. I would prefer magnetic, since this is important for landing. Winds aloft are less critical to me, but should also be reported to me in magnetic. Funny, but FS5 and FS98 (as I remember) reported surface winds in magnetic and winds aloft as true. Guess we've regressed a bit... :)BTW, please change one thing - the "Advanced" button - why? Please just give us the full dialog box from the beginning. I almost never use the first box, and have to press that button every time.Thanks,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[Damian Clark 1,235]

Hi,What a great thread...As Jim has pointed out, true vs. magnetic is one of those things that many users aren't aware of and it does result in many "why don't my winds match up" kind of questions (and false bug reports to boot).However, my opinion is that it is a necessary complexity when providing a realism-capable sim. For ATIS and ATC-provided "oral" wind reports, magnetic winds must be depicted and reported for proper "situational awareness" of the wind condition by the pilot, which of course is most important during takeoff and landing. During flight training we are taught everything magnetically, because this is the easiest way to compute the effect of the wind on the aircraft (i.e. by looking at your DG and "imagining" the wind coming from a certain heading). It's very important in determining which runways to use, especially at non-controlled airports where it's up to the PIC to make the call. But then we learn how to navigate using winds aloft forecasts, which are provided in TRUE. Now we need to compute a wind correction angle to determine the actual magnetic heading to fly based on expected true wind. Why can't they use the same magnetic format and make things easy? Because winds aloft forecasts are based on geographic reporting/forecasting points which cover a large range and can span several degrees of magnetic variation (in other words, the resolution is poor). By offering the TRUE direction, the pilot can be more precise based on his exact position/flight plan path.Based on all that, it seems obvious to me the solution must be to maintain magnetic directions. The confusion for unknowledgeable users is better than a forced unrealistic situation for those "in the know".As to solving the confusion for the "majority" of the FS user base, I can see only one good solution: To allow the user to specify true vs. magnetic (similar to the TAS vs. IAS option) and default it to TRUE. I realize this probably isn't an FSX option at this point but would perhaps be something for FSXI?? :)Best,

[Guest tdragger]

<>Ha! Funny thing, that... I originally proposed that back during development on FS2004 after I came up with the idea of Weather Themes*. My thought was the same as yours--if real weather or themes didn't give you what you want then why bother with this sort-of custom weather step? But I got a lot of pushback from folks on the team who used it quite a bit and thus lost the battle.As for FSX, the weather UI is not any area that's changing much and you know he saying, "if it aint broke, don't fix it." I'll see what I can do, though.* - Normally I'm lothe to take individual credit for anything but I'll make an exception for Weather Themes since I do have a patent pending on them (along with Niniane). ;)

[Guest lnuss]

If there's only one type of wind reporting, as opposed to the real world, then it really should be magnetic. Even real world pilots don't particularly enjoy having to convert true to mag, or vice versa (but have no choice). So if you don't match the real world, magnetic direction for wind reporting makes the most sense.

[neil0311 366]

If the choice is binary, then I'll take magnetic. Yes it would be nice to have true readings for winds aloft, but if that also meant true readings at the surface, things would get confusing quickly. The amount of confusion that would be generated by winds aloft read in magnetic is a whole lot less than the amount confusion that would be generated by surface readings given as true. How many simmers even own an E6-B or know how to find an isogonic line on a sectional chart?

[Guest christian]

>Ha! Funny thing, that... I originally proposed that back>during development on FS2004 after I came up with the idea of>Weather Themes*. Very neat idea. I love them...>As for FSX, the weather UI is not any area that's changing>much and you know he saying, "if it aint broke, don't fix it.">I'll see what I can do, though.If you need people backing this change, I'll vote yes (now we only need another 9,998 votes ;) )Christian

[tgibson 11]

Hi Mike,Thanks for giving it a try. It's one of those little annoying things that you don't think of unless it's brought up by messages like these, but every time I push that button I think "Why am I doing this?". The only time I don't use it is to change the wind direction, but that should be the default page on the main dialog (instead of the cloud page).BTW, I have enjoyed other interface improvements in FS2004, especially the ability to see the list of flights on the disk when saving a flight.Thanks,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[RobbieHe 0]

I use real weather (static) only. So, I guess this does not apply to folks like me. If it does, please let me know.RH

[Guest depot_haldol]

I know I'm in the minority here; I've read the thread. There are only one or two other votes for TRUE so far, but to me it makes the most sense. Especially if FSX is going to try harder to approach "realism." What should happen is that all the winds should be calculated with reference to TRUE north. That will make the METARs and winds aloft fetched from the real world match the atmosphere that the aircraft is flying in. You don't fly with real-world weather? Well, it would still make flight planning easier, because you would be able to better predict the effect that winds will have over the course of your flight.But what about landing and takeoff, and reports from the tower? For that, each airport should have a value for magnetic variation stored in its data block. That way the wind could be calculated for TRUE, but reported in MAGNETIC by tower after applying the published variation. This way wind could have a set TRUE value in a global area but every airport in the region would have accurate winds reported by tower for their runways. The only way to have this accuracy without doing this would be to essentially define every airport's magnetic variation as zero. But that would clash with all the published navigational charts that people use to fly. (Your ILS is defined according to MAGNETIC north, but when you look on the approach plate, the longitudinal grid lines point towards true north.) It's a detail, sure, but so is compass lag and the distinction between indicated and true airspeed. If you're going for realism, then lets' be real.Also, MAGNETIC north changes over time. If the variation were stored as part of the airport, then as the magnetic north pole wanders, you could re-number runways and re-name ILS courses without changing scenery files to physically point the runway in a new direction. Now, if a runway changes number, you have to rotate the runway in space so that its actual approach course matches what the ILS reads. If it were just a matter of anjusting the magnetic variation, you wouldn't have to build new scenery when the variation changes. (An example: a runway and its ILS are aligned towards 355 degrees magnetic. The runway number is 35. The magnetic variation is -9 degrees. Next year, the magnetic variation changes to -8 degrees, and the magnetic course, on the runway and ILS, are now 356. The runway has to be re-numbered to 36. It happens in real life! Without being able to change the variation in FSX, to keep the true alignment of ILS and runway, the scenery itself would have to rotate.) So picking MAGNETIC over TRUE is easier, but then so is ignoring the difference betweem indicated and true airspeed, or ignoring the fact that the "barber pole" decreases in jets as you climb, or ignoring the fact that fuel consumption goes down as the air becomes less dense. All of these these simplifications can be made, but at the expense of realism. If your'e going to simulate flight, then that's what you should strive for: accurate simulation--while making as few concessions to simplicity as possible.---Will

[JSkorna 137]

Thanks Will,You have stressed my point well!Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development TeamActive Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter

[Guest EdrickV]

Right now the impression I get is that we'll only get one or the other, not both. And, incidently, magnetic variation info is stored in the AFCAD data and used, however in the sim magnetic north doesn't change so changing the magnetic variation will rotate the runways relative to the terrain."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

[Emerson67 248]

>Magnetic. Definitely.>>Unless you're in an Airbus, or a new Boeing and you're above>60 degrees north latitude (or something like that), you never>have any indication of what your True heading is.>>Most people are concerned with wind during takeoff, or when on>approach. During those times, everything is referenced in>Magnetic. Runway headings, ATC vectors and surface winds are>all given in Magnetic. I think that FS users will get the most>bang for their buck if you make (or leave) everything>referenced to Magnetic direction.I use the weather dialogs a lot and I have the same opinion. I vote for magnetic.By the way, the weather dialog interface could provide a way for users to choose between temperature scales: celsius or fahrenheit. In my FS9, the temp. scale is in fahrenheit only. Is there a way to change this? A simple combo box (drop down list), or radio buttons, or another similar GUI element would do the job.Mental calculations to convert between temperature scales are annoying. In addition, it

[Guest grapesh]

If one day MSFS, maybe with a help of MSR, are going to invest into some atmospheric model in order to provide some live and dynamic weather, then you better have wind computations in true, as the air physics does not care much about magnetic deviation (i.e. most computational grids are aligned with lat/lon). As for UI reports: I agree that it should be a choice magnetic vs true.Cheers,