AndiGelaendi

:good:

There is a slight difference between your example and this case, but you can only see this if you read the posts in the other thread as well, so it is understandable that you do not see this difference. Normally I would have posted this into the other thread but it has been locked there, so I used this thread instead because this thread also fits to that topic. If you did not read my posts and the answers from RSR in the other thread then you can ignore my post in this thread.

Hm, I should have added some more details to my post here to prevent from being misunderstood. So now here are some more details, because the other topic has been locked. Maybe that discussion fits even better in this thread. If this post fits better into the other thread which is locked at the moment, I would also appreciate if a moderator could move this post into the other thread. In that case I can also correct the titles of the quotations which are looking a bit strange here because I can not take the quotations directly out of the other thread because it is locked. KriVa said: I know, that there might be some differences between the "weather radar" in the video and a realistic weather radar. But I am sure that based on this it is possible with several months or even years of additional work to create a weather radar that is as realistic as it has to be to fit into the very high PMDG-Standard. I want to make clear that I did never request that this thing in the video has to be included into a PMDG aircraft. flyerboy said: No, this is simply not true. I can tell you, why: As mentioned above, I did never request that this thing in the video has to be included into a PMDG aircraft. Moreover I do not own the PMDG 777 because I don't like the philosophy of flying with as much automation as possible (that's why I also did not buy an Airbus for my FSX). I am sure that the PMDG 777 is a great FSX-Add-On but I prefer flying with manual control and manual thrust and it seems that the philosophy of the 777 does not fit to my preferences. So if the PMDG 777 would get a weather radar, I would not have any advantage. But I do have the PMDG 737NGX and I think this is a great aircraft to fly manually, but also for that aircraft for me personally a weather radar is not very important - although it would be nice to have, of course. My post was not meant to be complaining about the missing weather radar in the PMDG aircraft (which is a decision I totally accept) - I complain about the way, RSR is writing his posts in this forum. Looking around in other forums, one can find out that RSR is often said to be very arrogant - and that way of writing is what I am complaining about when I say "Pride comes before a fall". In this forum that seems to be mentioned not very often in such a direct way, which is completely understandable in an "official support forum". rsrandazzo said: Thanks for this info; I did not know this thread before. rsrandazzo said: The contrary is true: I am recognizing much more details than many others (otherwise I would not be so succesful in my real career and also my virtual "career" in the flight simulation area), but unlike many other people I also bring everything that I recognize into question instead of simply believing it. I know that people who ask critical questions are often not very welcome but with my experience I am still convinced that an inconvenient truth is better than a convenient lie so I keep bringing everything into question critically, as you might remember from my old post here. In that post I had written (among many other interesting facts): You can be very proud that the PMDG737NGX is named directly behind the brilliant VRS F/A-18E with the VRS TacPac. I really have great respect for the work of the entire PMDG-Team, but I can not accept being answered in such an arrogant way which you have used for several times in that thread. If you like getting a reputation in other forums as an arrogant forum author, then you can just continue with that way of writing. But if not, then you should think twice before publishing your posts in this forum. rsrandazzo said: I do totally accept this procedure or even more: I thnik that this procedure is very important if you want to publish products that are as succesful as the PMDG aircraft are. I do not see any reason why you are telling me about this way because there is nothing new about this. So go ahead with this procedure to continue with the great PMDG-quality that we all love!

Hi Randazzo, do you remember our discussion about the weather-radar a few month ago? Then please take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddXWqu-mK-U#t=15 And a look at this: http://www.hifitechinc.com/news/74-ifly-737-asn-radar Taking your words into consideration, that is what I call: Pride comes before a fall. Best Regards André

Robert, I have written you a PM a few days ago. Did you have the time to take a look?

Sorry for that, I should have known that mentioning the new pilot client will lead people to ask questions about it. So for all people interested in the new pilot client: Take a look into the VATSIM-Forum where you can find official announcements. I will not provide you with any further information about it in this PMDG-thread. Roger, is there any possibility to split up these Off-Topic posts to another thread?

Yes, I added some more info about my tasks to my previous post.

PM to two developers in the VATSIM-Germany-Forum is sent. Let's see...

I know that there is no direct interface that could pass the needed weather-data to an add-on-weather-radar. But for me that does not seem that this is impossible - one could create an interface directly to the core of FSX or something like that (of course a crazy idea because it much, much work to do, but even if I do not know any possibility how to achieve, I could still imagine that anyone who spends some years of work could find a way). I suggest to completely bypass "The underlying in-game engine". If the clouds are set as single 3D-Objects there are no "layers" or other stuff like that. Of course it is possible then to create a realistic and accurate radar because the developer of the weathertool can chose the resolution of the clouds (theoretically you could chose a resolution of 1cm or even less for the information where the clouds, rain etc. are - because of the graphics-engine-load not a good idea though). It is much work to do, but it is possible. Just take a look at Cumulus X to see how the FSX-engine gets bypassed.

It seems that you either did not read or did not understand my post. So please read it again carefully (In my post I suggest bypassing the FSX-weather-engine).

Haha, I have good reasons, why I do not own a smartphone. :lol:

Hi Robert, although I am new to this forum, I think I have quite a lot of experience with FSX because I am providing people in the VATSIM-Germany-Forum with support for FSX and with an FSX-Workshop via Teamviewer for a couple of years now. So I would say, I know quite a lot about FSX and its limitations. But I am flying with the VRS F/A-18E for a few years now, I use the VRS TacPac and I have the PMDG737NGX, so I also know how far you can go beyond this limitations. :wink: What I have learned in years of working with the FSX is: You can absolutely never prove that something is impossible. You can only prove that something is possible by simply doing it. I really love this statement from VRS: A few years ago nobody could think of a working FLIR-System in FSX. Nobody could think of Missiles that can destroy other aircraft in a Multiplayer-Environment in FSX. Nobody could think of bombs that really create permanent effects to the ground in FSX. Nobody could think of Aircraft-Carrier-Decks that are pitching up and down in FSX - making a carrier-landing in FSX more difficult than ever before. But today all these features are reality in FSX and not only in a very simplified way but for example with all the different FLIR-Modes that can be found in the real aircraft and accesible in the same way like in the real aircraft directly in the virtual cockpit of the VRS F/A-18E. My opinion is that the PMDG737NGX is a really great aircraft but the VRS F/A-18E with the VRS TacPac is even more sophisticated (because the real F/A-18E has much more "special" features than the 737NG, and VRS don't say that something is impossible). I would even go a step further and say: If the real F/A-18E had a weather-radar, VRS would have included a weather-radar in their F/A-18E or would work on this. Now you might answer that a weather-radar is impossible in FSX. I know that there is no simple method in FSX that can provide Add-On-Aircraft with the weather-data they need for a detailed weather-radar. There is nothing new about this. But nevertheless I would still say: A detailed, correct working weather-radar is possible in FSX. You might wonder that I say that, even if I know about the limitations in FSX? Let me explain you a basic concept for a new weather-tool, that would make the implementation of a weather-radar very easy (but of course there may be other ways to achieve this as well - I am only giving one example which is possible): 1. First download the real weather like many other weather-tools already do. You can use the VATSIM-Weather for example or the NOAA-Server. Or you can let the user create his own weather like he does in FSX normally. 2. Then send wind and QNH to the default FSX-weather-interface (maybe with some little turbulence effects like some weathertools do) but do not send any cloud layers or rain-information to FSX. Just let the weather in FSX on CAVOK. 3. Then use the basic weather-data provided from different sources or set by the user to create exact positions of clouds in a similar way FSX uses to set clouds. I would suggest doing this calculations for the real weather on a server and send the positions of the clouds to the users, so everybody gets the same information (that would be useful for online group-flights where the users might compare their weather data). Do this calculations for rain, fog or other effects you can think of. 4. Then set the clouds to FSX as single 3D-Objects using the installed textures (default, REX, ActiveSky or whatever). Set rain, fog etc. using effects (*.fx-Files). That would have some nice side-effects: You can create cloud-shadows (!) and you can create rain, fog etc. in a certain distance (!) to the aircraft and not only have rain, fog etc. at the current position of the aircraft. In reality you can see rain even if it is far away so it would be nice to have this option in FSX. 5. Send the data where to find clouds, rain or whatever a weather-radar would need to an interface that can be used by aircraft add-ons for their weather-radar. That's it. To prove that this way is really possible, let me give you some examples of software that already exists: To No. 1: Downloading the real weather data from a server is a basic functionality of nearly every weather-tool (FSrealWX, ActiveSky, FSGRW etc.) - there is nothing special about this. To No. 2: Setting wind and QNH (maybe with some nice turbulence effects) is a basic function of nearly every weather-tool. Setting CAVOK is nothing special as well. To No. 3: This is the basic concept of FSGRW - a new weather tool, that does first create a detailed weather model based on real world data on a server and then sends the information to the clients. It may need some server-capacity but it is possible. To No. 4: This is the basic concept of CumulusX - a weather tool designed for glider pilots that creates cumulus clouds as single 3D-Objects in FSX bypassing the default weather-interface. The clouds do not look great because they use a really bad texture quality but exchanging the textures and using REX-Textures or ActiveSky-Textures would be possible. CumulusX also creates cloud shadows (!) in FSX. The shadows look a bit strange because they are based on very-low-resolution-polygons but enhancing the graphics quality is something that is definitely possible if you spend a lot of time working on this. Setting effects in FSX far away from the own aircraft is also possible as the VRS TacPac proves with the explosions of the missiles and bombs far away from the own aircraft. To No. 5: If the data is already determined in step 3, then this step is very simple. You see, every single step of this way is possible. It just needs much (maybe extremly much) work to do, but "lasting long to create" is not the same as "impossible". The steps itself are already done in several different weather-tools. What is needed is just a combination of the already existing weather-tools and textures. But I would say, even using the default-FSX-weather-interface implementing a weather-radar is possible (but even more complicated). I do not know, how this could be achieved (maybe an interface to ask the graphics card, where clouds etc. are positioned? - very strange idea though), but I would still not say that this is impossible. I think about this in a completely different way. We could still live in a cave because it is impossible to create buildings that are more comfortable than caves. We could still eat only fruits and berries we can pick up from plants because it is impossible to kill an animal that is much larger than a couple of men and it is impossible to light up a fire that allows us the baking of bread. We could still travel by walking around because it is impossible to travel faster than the fastest man can run. The people who say "No, it is not impossible" are exactly the ones, we need in our society. People who say "It is impossible, no need to try it" are the ones for the shredder :wink: (although I think using this idiom is very close to a violation of the forum-rules). I don't want to offend you, but in my life I have made the experience that the people who argue like you do with your example of the shredder are often the ones, whose statements are just plain wrong. So next time when you think about your shredder please think twice about the impression such an idiom can leave behind. If you had said "Creating a weather-radar in FSX is much too elaborate, so PMDG is not even thinking about this.", I would completely accept that, because it is PMDGs decision what to implement - although it might be smart to have the requests of the users in mind when making these decisions. But if you say "It is impossible" or "It can not be done" I step in because this is simply not true. If you think, the idea I mentioned above is worth a trial, I would be very satisfied. If another FSX-developer thinks, it is worth a trial, it would be very nice as well (I would like to create a weather-tool based on this concept on my own (maybe as an addition to the new VATSIM-Pilot-Client we are developing at the moment), but I have too many other projects at the time). If you think, the idea is not worth a trial because it is too elaborate, I would completely accept that. But please stop telling people that something is impossible. Best regards André Koloschin