Kevin_28

I tried this a month or so ago. I have the maddog, and I put in a custom precipitous cloud layer a few thousand feet above the airport. I took off and flew through and above the layer. What I observed is what Matt stated in that the weather radar seems to have a conical vertical return. The higher I was above the cloud layer, the further away the rain is shown on the weather radar. If I have time later, I can try to do it again and record the video of it.

Maybe it's because I purchased this plane for p3d such that it doesn't bother me. Honestly even with all the 3rd party enhanced cockpit textures, though I can see the difference, its not something I really notice in flight. I'm usually looking more outside than in I suppose.

Fair enough. I'll leave the more technical explanation to you as that is not my forte. So am I correct in that they are approaching it this way so they can basically low their aircraft to be compatible with an Xbox release?

Leonardo generally is more of a work behind the scenes privately, and make an announcement shortly before the release kind of dev. He doesn't give regularly scheduled updates like the other major devs do. Essentially every release is a bit of surprise sort of thing. That being said, at least from my experience with them in p3d, they are always working on improvements and new features so it's not like they sit on their hands for long extended periods. In terms of textures and sounds, I don't think they have really addressed it. Personally, I find the textures adequate enough so I don't care one way or the other. Must be blind. Sounds, I get, and would like to see an improvement but the systems win it over for me.

This question seems to come up quite frequently. The reason, from what I gather, why other devs like Leonardo, Fenix, and FBW can have a fully functional EFB so quickly is that they are running certain aspects of their programming outside of the sim. This allows them to get away from the current challenges presented by the SDK. The XBox environment does not allow for this, so those devs decided to essentially either temporarily shelve that or just not offer it for xbox. PMDG, in order to reach the Xbox market, decided to try to forego those options and are trying to find ways around the limitations. Note that they code in c++ and use wasm, so that's where a lot of the limitations stems from.

I believe the 1-5 system is a shorthand way to refer to the first 5 pilot ranks (JR FO, FO, Sr FO, Capt, Sr Capt). In the your case, First Officer is considered rank 2. The 1-5 does not take into account the various levels of Senior Captain. If your rating is 95%, that means you'll primarily get offers from 2-4 star airlines. If you apply for airlines you have a 66% chance of acceptance from a 2 star airline, 49% chance from a 3 star, 32% chance of a 4 star, and 20% chance of a 5 star.

To be fair, I read it the same way jarmstro did, initially. I thought there was some sort of bug where if you are flying in real time, the weather is injecting old data all the time throughout those regions. If you stated that you were flying outside of real time and the weather is not reflecting your set in-sim time, then that would have made things clear. You did clarify what you meant eventually though. The thing is, there are quite a few other forum topics on here that covered this topic particular extensively. Honestly, I don't really see a whole lot of new info that warrants this. It's the same repetitive statements being made. At this point, I can live with most of the deficiencies of the weather in the sim. I don't usually fly historical, and even if I set it to day time, I'm OK with flying in real time weather that doesn't match. I understand that simmers want everything to match, and I get it, but for me it's not terribly important. Expanded cloud formations are also a major plus, but I can tolerate what we currently have now. Off the top of my head I can only think of a few things that I really want, allow for 3rd part devs to at least implement a fully featured WX radar system with tilt, windshear detection, etc. I don't care if ASOBO provides one that devs can tap into or if they open up raw data (unlikely). The second is the bug where there are dramatic random wind/pressure shifts during flight. It's pretty annoying and causes my aircraft to overspeed or potentially stall depending on the shifts. Then it randomly reverts back. It's like some hiccup in the data. Maybe the third one is that they buffer the gust changes, but so far it hasn't been really problematic for me during flight and landing/takeoff phases.

Hey Bob! That's good to know. For me personally, ultimately, it doesn't really matter. I can handle approaches just fine without the HUD. I'm not constantly monitoring my instruments where that degree of sensitivity matters to me. I fly much more based on feel. Pilots have been able to handle approaches without them for decades. Also, the HUD is not generally standard with the virtual airline I do most of my flying for and try to fly with roughly the same kind of configuration. Note that I am not saying it's not useful. If you use it, great! I just find it more of a distraction for me than anything else.

I never use it. Perfectly comfortable looking at the PFD.

Thought they announced this back in late December on BeMint's stream...

Hey a turbulence slider. That should be music to some simmers' ears.

I use the southwest airlines livery all the time with no issues. No outstanding maintenance issues on your FMC?

Yea that sounds about right. To be fair, it looks like they are really trying to up their game with the md11 in terms of fidelity. While yes the 717 was a bit of mess upon release, it was improved upon significantly. It was their first plane and it is common to see that sort of thing (fenix being an obvious exception). I can certainly see the price being an issue though. In the end, I purchased the preorder. They are not some new start up with no track record so I feel comfortable in doing so. I also have close familial ties with someone who helped design the md11, so I want to support the effort. The ER variant is also a plus for me.

Never had that issue, but I did notice that updating to SU11 reset my settings, so that's not at all surprising. Thankfully, before I started a flight, I went through and set them back (hopefully) to where it was before the update.

To me a good landing is in part the landing rate and touchdown point as you stated, but it's also how controlled we are on the flare as we TD. I don't really care if I get a landing rate above 200. The main issue I and others had was that the physics didn't quite feel right at the flare and we either slammed it down hard or floated, not much of a sweet spot in the middle. Aamir describes what we were running into here.

Well lately my sim has been ctding during the middle of my flights, so I can't do a full test flight, but I did some touch and go's and the landing is much improved now (at least from my pov).

Awesome! Can you show us a video of your landing the a320? Maybe I can get some pointers through that.

I have the same experience where I can land the 737 quite easily. It feels smoother in the various transitions in the flare, so I average -90 to -200 on average with the 737 as it's more predictable/consistent. The Fenix... it's higher, -200 to -300 on average. I haven't really done many flights in it admittedly as I am more of a boeing guy, but yea it doesn't feel as smooth for sure. It feels like towards the latter end of the flare, the ground effect kicks in more abruptly and it's making it much more easy to float it. I also am not a fan of the eye level of the plane too, I feel like we're a bit high in relation to seeing the ground from the outside so it makes the flare harder to gauge as well. Maybe it's just what I am used to, but I suspect that has a bit to do with it as well.

I believe the CJ4 has both onboard and SiriusXM radar

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

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

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?

Just wanting to pick your brain a bit here (not trying to be argumentative but genuinely curious). Why allow this to be the hill? There were things that were missing from the sim that would allow these high end addons to be the best they can be when they were released (such as things like flight modeling, etc). However, those things didn't stop them from deving and putting their foot down at the same time.

Are we saying that we cannot implement weather radar as provided and pressure Asobo to do more at the same time?

Latest ATIS that I can see from the ADDS is LPPR 281730Z 31004KT 270V350 9999 SCT038 17/15 Q1017 Would you say that the in-sim cloud depictions match that? If so, does the ATIS match real world photos? If not, then is that really the sim's fault? As for why the OP is not matching what other people are getting with live weather in sim, I'm not sure.