I like the current weather "radar" - it reminds me of playing games on my Commodore 64.

Seriously though. Maybe they could fix the weather first and then add a proper weather radar.

Oh wait - apparently they have fixed it. Great.

 

8 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

Why allow this to be the hill? (other) things didn't stop them from deving and putting their foot down at the same time.

I think, in this specific situation, it's because Asobo has been very vocal about expanding the flight model and in game physics. They've been very receptive to problems and have shown every intent on becoming the #1 Simulator for flight physics. On this issue, however, Asobo seems very eager to never touch the weather radar topic ever again. And so with regards to where to put our collective energy, it seems like the most logical place would be on issues Asobo doesn't want to work on, rather than ones they do want to work on.

6 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

It's not Asobo's main job to satisfy the demands of niche developers.

This statement is void of any intellectual thought. 

10 minutes ago, WestAir said:

I think, in this specific situation, it's because Asobo has been very vocal about expanding the flight model and in game physics. They've been very receptive to problems and have shown every intent on becoming the #1 Simulator for flight physics. On this issue, however, Asobo seems very eager to never touch the weather radar topic ever again. And so with regards to where to put our collective energy, it seems like the most logical place would be on issues Asobo doesn't want to work on, rather than ones they do want to work on.

Fair points... I'd like to hear more from MS/Asobo as to why exactly they can't provide the depth of weather APIs/hooks that P3Ds want.. if it's mostly an issue around legal/IP stuff specifically with Meteoblue, then maybe not worth fighting for, but otherwise then by all means sure... but in the grand scheme of things and items we want them to focus on, where this particular issue falls in terms of priority I can't really say, but would guess it's lower.

26 minutes ago, TrafficPilot said:

Maybe they could fix the weather first

The weather is fine. There's more important things for them to focus on.

22 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

but in the grand scheme of things and items we want them to focus on, where this particular issue falls in terms of priority I can't really say, but would guess it's lower.

Agreed. WXR is far below more cloud types, better ATC, and better ground handling physics on my personal wish list, but I've also been made aware by people in this forum that the devs that work on one of these issues aren't the same devs that work on the others. If I were a betting man, (and I'm from Las Vegas), I'd say Working Tile could take the mantle of making a functional WXR for all the different 3PD aircraft type,s and then letting those 3PD's copy/paste the fully-functional Asobo gauge into their aircraft. That way Asobo doesn't have to share Meteoblue data, since all of the tools for it are being accessed "in house" like the weather engine itself. A super easy solution I'd love to see implemented.

We'll see how things go. Personally I'm not very hopeful this will be resolved during the life-time of the sim, but I can often be unreasonably pessimistic.

Hi all.  Matt from Working Title, in that thread at the official MSFS forum, is explaining that the weather radar API is very capable and should be able to do most of what the study level airliner developers (ie. Fenix and PMDG) want to do.  There is one key response from Matt where he explains why the weather radar API is capable of doing everything that Fenix and PMDG need to do:

Quote

Here, I’ll show it instead. Maximum precip, single full coverage full density cloud layer from 2000 to 4000 AGL (ignore the lack of magenta and the black bars on the sides, just threw this test together without customizing any API parameters).

0 AGL:

3000ft AGL (directly in the middle of the layer):

7000ft AGL (3000ft above the layer):

10000ft AGL (6000ft above the layer):

As you can see, it very obviously uses a conic section, as evidenced by returns from the 2Kft layer moving closer to the aircraft as the layer and aircraft altitudes become coincident, and then further away as you go higher. I can only assume the developers are misunderstanding something about the API, made an assumption and didn’t try it for themselves, or are using the incorrect return mode and instead using the NEXRAD style one.

NEXRAD style mode at 10Kft:

 

 

 

A second key response from Matt in that thread:

Quote

I think you misunderstand. Firstly “they” is me, since I’m Matt of WT. . My claim was only that you don’t need all the super advanced features to make a useful and accurate core weather radar experience. I’m not discounting their usefulness, only that it seems silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

The weather radar is already 3D, as I demonstrated above. I’m not sure why these developers believe that you will get returns outside of the conic area of the radar beam, but I can assure them that you will only get radar returns within the 3D radar beam, and not infinitely above or below the aircraft as they seem to believe.

I think there is some misunderstanding by what some of the study level airline developers are saying they need, versus what Matt is saying the API is now capable of doing. In any case, I think if the study level airliner developers maybe get in touch with Matt, some of this misunderstanding can be resolved.

I say this because PMDG had a misunderstanding about the SDK back in December of 2021 or January of this year.  PMDG thought the SDK was not capable of doing what they wanted.  Well, Asobo had to sit down with PMDG and explain to them the SDK was perfectly capable of doing what PMDG wanted, but that PMDG misunderstood how to use the SDK.  After Asobo sat down with PMDG, Randazzo then said the issue was cleared, and that it was a misunderstanding on PMDG's behalf.

Communication is key. If what Matt says is correct, maybe there is a misunderstanding again.  It would probably be best if the study level airline developers talk to Matt directly (ie. @Aamir, sorry to ping you, but I hope you take a look at that thread - Matt from Working Title goes under the name Bishop398 in that thread, you can check Matt's comments in that thread).

Edited September 30, 20223 yr by abrams_tank

It's not looking good over at the MSFS forums, Matt is seriously thinking that the default weather radar (available e.g. on some default MSFS aircraft), which has now been made available via WASM in SU10, is anything remotely similar to a useful, realistic weather radar. I think that's the end of it, Asobo thinks that's fine.

23 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

It's not looking good over at the MSFS forums, Matt is seriously thinking that the default weather radar (available e.g. on some default MSFS aircraft), which has now been made available via WASM in SU10, is anything remotely similar to a useful, realistic weather radar. I think that's the end of it, Asobo thinks that's fine.

Just to make sure I got what you're saying, you're saying that the current weather radar certainly is useful insofar as depicting various densities of rain at various altitudes in front of the aircraft. However, because there is no access to actual discrete data, it's insufficient for a full model of weather radar if you want to model additional features such as windshear, etc. Is that correct?

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

The weather is fine. There's more important things for them to focus on.

Weather is FAR from being fine. 

25 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

It's not looking good over at the MSFS forums, Matt is seriously thinking that the default weather radar (available e.g. on some default MSFS aircraft), which has now been made available via WASM in SU10, is anything remotely similar to a useful, realistic weather radar. I think that's the end of it, Asobo thinks that's fine.

 

The default weather radar in MSFS also gives you precipitation BEHIND the aircraft. For Asobo that's realistic ... 

6 minutes ago, Jeeeno said:

 

The default weather radar in MSFS also gives you precipitation BEHIND the aircraft. For Asobo that's realistic ... 

Isn't that possible depending on the equipment? I thought I've seen that on GA aircraft specifically.

Edited September 30, 20223 yr by Kevin_28

4 minutes ago, Kevin_28 said:

Just to make sure I got what you're saying, you're saying that the current weather radar certainly is useful insofar as depicting various densities of rain at various altitudes in front of the aircraft. However, because there is no access to actual discrete data, it's insufficient for a full model of weather radar if you want to model additional features such as windshear, etc. Is that correct?

Well, that's not what I said, but yes, that's pretty much it. Functionality is severely limited (at least for airliners), and it will also look very awkward and wrong in the PMDG or Fenix planes, which is why they won't do it, even if it has some basic functions.

1 minute ago, Kevin_28 said:

Isn't that possible depending on the equipment? I thought I've seen that on GA aircraft specifically.

No idea which GA aircraft has a 360 degrees radar beam, but airliners certainly don't, the radar equipment is in the nose and the beam goes forward.

Just now, Fiorentoni said:

No idea which GA aircraft has a 360 degrees radar beam, but airliners certainly don't, the radar equipment is in the nose and the beam goes forward.

Nexrad I believe? I don't know. I'm not really well versed on all that.