8 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

"Whatever? "  What kind of conversational response or cogent rebuttal is that supposed to represent?

I think you're not understanding my point: none of the wx radar simulations you've operated in FSX, X Plane or P3d have been "study level", because none of them have remotely resembled the way actual weather (or weather radar) behave.  You've simply been playing a game of "go around the red," and the red has just been randomly drawn blotches.  You haven't been studying anything by doing that.  Real world weather avoidance is considerably more involved; it involves consideration of synoptic or mesoscale boundaries and the propagation of weather along those boundaries.  None of this has existed in previous sims.

For the first time, we have a sim that actually attempts to simulate this.  Of course it's not perfect but it's actually pretty good.  The existing weather depictions in this sim thus actually do approximate reality.  

My understanding is that PMDG isn't using existing MSFS radar because their aircraft are (by necessity) coded in a more capable programming language, and this language cannot currently communicate with the weather system of the sim. But we know that's coming.

I just can't understand why anyone would place such importance on something so minor to simulation, that you've never experienced a correctly working version of in the first place...

If you want to study and learn to play the piano could you do it on a piano with two of its keys missing? And would you pay full price for said piano?

8 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

If you want to study and learn to play the piano could you do it on a piano with two of its keys missing? And would you pay full price for said piano?

Come on now…that’s not quite the same thing. 
 

Now if it was missing lnav or vnav yeah you’ve got a point.

Loving the analogies being made in this thread!  

Although with the piano, it is more like just missing the sheet music holder I would say - just play it by ear!  

24 minutes ago, Azapata87 said:

Come on now…that’s not quite the same thing.

It’s a ludicrous comparison.

7 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

It’s a ludicrous comparison.

 

7 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

It’s a ludicrous comparison.

Actually it wasn't a comparison. It was an analogy.😀

All I am pointing out is that the plane cannot be called study level as we understand the term because important systems are INOP. And that therefore the price should reflect this fact. Why is this so controversial?

Edited November 17, 20214 yr by jarmstro

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

 

Actually it wasn't a comparison. It was an analogy. 😀

An analogy is a comparison😃😃

4 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

An analogy is a comparison😃😃

There's a subtle but crucial difference. Hence the need for both words.

58 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

If you want to study and learn to play the piano could you do it on a piano with two of its keys missing? And would you pay full price for said piano?

Well, let me ask you this: have you been willing to pay full price for any addon ever for any other sim that had a wx radar representation? 

If so, haven't you been ripped off, by your own definition of a correctly operating weather radar being vital to an aircraft simulation?  Because... none of those radars ever operated correctly, because the weather itself didn't operate correctly.  You've never been able to "study and learn" to avoid weather using airborne radar in any desktop sim.  The fact that you aren't understanding this is evidence that all this former "study"... wasn't.

At least PMDG is honest about the wx radar being inoperable, vs the devs in other sims (probably to include PMDG) who seem to have tricked you into believing you were learning something about airborne wx avoidance...

31 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

If so, haven't you been ripped off, by your own definition of a correctly operating weather radar being vital to an aircraft simulation?  Because... none of those radars ever operated correctly, because the weather itself didn't operate correctly.  You've never been able to "study and learn" to avoid weather using airborne radar in any desktop sim.  The fact that you aren't understanding this is evidence that all this former "study"... wasn't.

Of course I haven't been ripped off. Its not a question about being ripped off. I am not doubting that it will be a quality product. It's a discussion about the price we are asked, or choose, to pay given it's acknowledged shortcomings.

ie: If you buy a new car and it's heater is missing  (a non essential item), what is the price differential you would expect compared to a fully functioning and properly fitted out new car? 

Edited November 17, 20214 yr by jarmstro

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

There's a subtle but crucial difference. Hence the need for both words.

OED says an analogy is “a comparison between one thing and another”.

I doubt any subtle nuances that may exist in their deployment are relevant here😃😃😃

44 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I doubt any subtle nuances that may exist in their deployment are relevant here😃😃😃

Isn't that just a discombobulated oxymoron?😀😀

Edited November 17, 20214 yr by jarmstro

11 hours ago, jarmstro said:

It doesn't. Unless it claims to be study level.

You would be hard pressed to find those words anywhere on PMDG's product pages or in their marketing materials. Go troll somewhere else. Nobody here has to justify PMDG's pricing scheme to you. If that's a deal breaker for you, then you can sit and watch everyone else having a blast at launch.

Edited November 17, 20214 yr by kiwikat

21 minutes ago, kiwikat said:

You would be hard pressed to find those words anywhere on PMDG's product pages or in their marketing materials. Go troll somewhere else. Nobody here has to justify PMDG's pricing scheme to you. If that's a deal breaker for you, then you can sit and watch everyone else having a blast at launch.

If you can't bear to read opinions that don't chime with yours there's an ignore option on this forum. I suggest you use it.

12 hours ago, jarmstro said:

It doesn't. Unless it claims to be study level.

what  addon aircraft  you  believe is  a study  level 

4 hours ago, jarmstro said:

 

Actually it wasn't a comparison. It was an analogy.😀

All I am pointing out is that the plane cannot be called study level as we understand the term because important systems are INOP. And that therefore the price should reflect this fact. Why is this so controversial?

Seriously jarmstro, I think you're just trying to get your post count up 🙂 ?  

"...the plane cannot be called study level as we understand the term because important systems are INOP". 

I used to fly as military crew on B727s and I can tell you that some of the word not allowed hole places we flew in and out of demanded a great level of understanding of the minimum equipment list (MEL) because we just did not want be there over night or for even more than a couple of hours in some cases!  

Take a look at this B727 MEL below and count up how many systems can be 'INOP' at dispatch. Of course it wasn't just 'Yep we can fly without one of those...'  We also had to know what restrictions that placed on the operation of the aircraft for the entire flight. You will note that weather radar is just one system of many.  Engine start valves, bleed air systems, air con packs and a host of important navigation and air speed system INOPS are permitted ...with restrictions.   So here's your study level study for tonight jarmstro. Look up the MEL for the B737 and confirm all the requirements you must comply with if the weather radar is INOP and fly the aircraft accordingly. Then look for any other PMDG oversights and determine their MEL status. If you find some serious ones that mean the aircraft can't be dispatched according to the MEL, then we might start taking things a little more seriously.     

https://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/MMEL/B727_Rev_49a.pdf

IRL there a specific time frames in which a MEL has to be repaired but not for all MEL's. We used to fly with some permanent ones!  In MSFS life, PMDG as the aircraft manufacturer will fix these MELS when they get to it.  In the meantime we're just the tech flight crew and need to study those MEL restrictions and fly accordingly.   

I know we can set up random failures in MSFS but it would be interesting if after meticulous flight planning we arrived at the airframe with a couple of unexpected MEL's to factor in as well. like...oh I don't know....say...evening departure out of Singapore with towering Cu to 70000 feet and ......wx radar INOP🤔.

Cheers

 

Terry 

Edited November 17, 20214 yr by Lord Farringdon