Not everyone has Activesky, so that won't work.

It could at least be offered as an option for those who have ActiveSky/ASE. Pretty much like the optional Reality XP WX Radar integration for the JS41.And even if an integrated WXR wouldn't do more than just display cloud positions like the Reality XP WXR, it wouldn't be totally useless and would add to immersion.Those who don't like it could just leave it turned off/disabled.For the rest of us: we might enjoy it.

That's all assuming FSX keeps up with weather anywhere except where you currently are. It probably doesn't understand "is it raining at KDFW?" at all, but rather the simple "is it raining right here?" If you set a simple rainy weather theme, then rain=trueIf you set real-world weather, then every so often it checks weather at your location (wherever you are). If there's no rain when it checks then it sets rain=false. It never knows anything more than "is it raining right here?" That's a little oversimplified, but a good nutshell explanation of why a program can't read the weather inside FSX. Now IF an addon downloaded it's own weather information & injected it into the sim that could work, but as an aircraft developer, there's no way PMDG could program a built in radar to be compatible with every weather addon out there, displaying their raw weather data ingame (assuming the addon has enough data at any given time to cover a map). So a realistic built-in WXR still isn't possible.

I don't know the first thing about how FSX is coded or how weather is handled, but I know BS when I read it. I'll give you a perfect example of how your explanation makes zero sense: I took off out of KFLL on a bright, sunshiny South Florida afternoon. I was using FSX realtime static weather (no 15 minute updates). I could confirm that it was, in fact, a bright sunshiny day in Fort Lauderdale by looking out my window. When I got to Key West, there was a nasty thunderstorm which I could see from many miles off during approach. A binary system, such as you described, cannot achieve these results. If your theory was correct, then the thunderstorm would have suddenly appeared around me without warning.

I don't know the first thing about how FSX is coded or how weather is handled, but I know BS when I read it. I'll give you a perfect example of how your explanation makes zero sense: I took off out of KFLL on a bright, sunshiny South Florida afternoon. I was using FSX realtime static weather (no 15 minute updates). I could confirm that it was, in fact, a bright sunshiny day in Fort Lauderdale by looking out my window. When I got to Key West, there was a nasty thunderstorm which I could see from many miles off during approach. A binary system, such as you described, cannot achieve these results. If your theory was correct, then the thunderstorm would have suddenly appeared around me without warning.

It may very well have put some big, dense clouds where that storm front was, but I will guarantee it was not raining until you got there. if you really could see the rain from that group of big, dense clouds up ahead of you post a screenshot or video and I'll never say another word about it.

I'm not sure if it was raining or not (I know there was lightning) but that's not the point. The point is the that even 20nm out the game KNEW there was supposed to be rain there. Whether or not it was rendered on my graphics card as rain is irrelevant.

I'm not sure if it was raining or not (I know there was lightning) but that's not the point. The point is the that even 20nm out the game KNEW there was supposed to be rain there. Whether or not it was rendered on my graphics card as rain is irrelevant.

Just noticed the static weather part, so yes it would have to have had weather data for that area, but can you say it actually mapped it out instead of just putting a big circular storm cell because it reported rain at that metar source? That's the whole point. It doesn't and can't store rain in a mappable form. It only knows if it's raining at the fixed geographic locations of each "weather station."It has no idea if it's raining 30 miles south of an airport, if it reports rain at that airport then it's going to make it rain everywhere within that radius of coverage. The opposite will be true as well, if it's raining 20miles east of an airport but sunny at that airport, then it'll be sunny everywhere within range of that metar data.

I use Active Sky Evolution's XGauge for wx map and even departure / arrival atis etc.(on my monitor 2, as needed).

if it reports rain at that airport then it's going to make it rain everywhere within that radius of coverage. The opposite will be true as well, if it's raining 20miles east of an airport but sunny at that airport, then it'll be sunny everywhere within range of that metar data.

This is true for FSX in general, but it isn't entirely true for ASE, which interpolates the METAR data from four surrounding weather stations and averages it out across those METARS, so if has a good stab at the weather in between weather stations. If someone could tap into that interpolation, it might just be possible to make something that was a bit more accurate as a 'pseudo weather radar', and I guess HiFi would be the ones best placed to try it. Of course the problem is that the actual weather which is rendered in the sim tends to be around your aeroplane, and because that is so, the RXP and CS weather radars are really just sticking a bit of a best guess at things from a METAR a long way ahead of you, which won't correspond exactly to what clouds get rendered when you arrive at that point in your aeroplane, so all that radar PRF is indeed a complete fake. But in general terms, I have found that the CS weather radar can actually be at least a bit useful for steering around the general area of crappy weather, since at night you cannot see a massive Cb 240 miles ahead of you, and so it is handy to have its position at least roughly represented on a scope, and I have certainly made use of that ability in FSX to alter course around things. We're never likely to have a truly realistic radar simulation in FSX, but then again, there isn't really 16,000lbs of jet fuel in our simulated aeroplane's wing tanks at just above freezing temperatures, nor are our exhaust nozzles red hot either, in spite of that CDU reporting these matters to be true, but we are all prepared to suspend belief on that score, so I am happy to settle for the CS weather radar doing a reasonably convincing fake stab things as well, and I do like the idea of pointing the radar down and microwaving people who live near the runway threshhold when I'm on short finals LOL. Al

Al,I do agree that 3rd party weather apps can do a good job with weather depiction. Basically displaying a Radar & telling fsx when to rain (I know that's over simplified, but it's 8pm and I started drinking at 6...)The problem for a wxr in the ngx though is how to depict that weather. It can't do it from fsx & to make it work with an addon would require a pretty tight partnership with that developer. Something they haven't done in the past & would likely be reluctant to start. That gets into the whole pricing issue, dual software licensing & all that mess. Plus it'd give some customers the impression that it's required, the hidden fees mess we read about very briefly when people's fmc's started telling them their navdata was out of date & assumed it was a racket to make them buy the latest cycle.It's been a good discussion. Made me notice a few flaws in how I thought it worked...

The only place rain ever exists in fsx is a tiny corcle around our plane. The other radars out there do not display precipitation because fsx doesn't even have that information. Drawing a square on a piece of paper and filling it in with random red blobs is exactly as accurate as any weather radar in fsx.

That's also true for every full flight simulator I've seen or worked on. They don't model precipitation either, but that doesn't stop them having weather radar simulations, in fact Level D sims must have WXR. Although WXR works in real life by detecting precipitation, full flight sim WXR simulations don't. Add on WXRs do a good job of using the weather information FSX does have to produce a believable and representative simulation. If you take it seriously and fly round the storms, you haven't avoided any real or simulated danger, but it has made the simulation more immersive. Anyway, PMDG have made their decision, even if it is for the wrong reasons IMO, and they aren't going to change it in a hurry. I am happy to accept that. Kevin Hall

Just to add here, but the WX Radar logic in some "Level D" sims leaves a lot to be desired most of the time. It's not as hot stuff as some of us would like to think. Implementation consists of an image typically mated to a defined weather scenario with mapped zones of weather/precip ie: it's basically an image that correlates with a plotted weather scenario. FSX on the other hand is always changing with the real weather. The reality is...sigh...it ain't gonna happen. You can manage CATIIIa approaches in this sim anyways so you'll be fine.

It is possibly THE age old discussion... radar reflects off particles, which is in turn prepared into an image. Water droplets and ice crystals reflect very well, snow less so (which is why a snowstorm does not have such an intense return as does say a hailstorm or thunderstorm rain). For a simulated radar to work as the real world counterpart should, you would need to simulate precipitation formation in locations other than where your aircraft happens to be placed. You would need to load the weather for a number of stations around each location, and interpret the weather accordingly. The problem is, METARs are not real time, they are a snapshot, TAFs are forecasts, predictions... You would need to develop some intelligence that can infer precipitation at specific locations as per the METARs and TAFs... Try changing your location in FS. It normally "takes" the current weather with you uhntil it loads the new weather for the location. This means that it doesn't have the location's weather stored and running, it does not know what the weather is at the new location until you go there, it doesn't even predict or forecast it... No real precipitation model or data means no precipitation simulation is going to be even vaguely realistic. Pretty pictures of clouds, I don't even know how the simulations on the market assume the intensity of the weather. I have seen red returns from regions of the sky, which were totally cloud free, so I would be avoiding blue sky if I followed the radar... ;) Even if it were to be at no performance cost whatsoever, it is just eye candy and has no meaning to the simulation of the flight, unlike the TERR radar simulation. THAT works... and can be followed very well indeed I have found, that is worth it... Andrew

Whining about weather radar at the end of the line isn't going to help anyone, and all it's going to do is irritate the Dev team (esp because they're being accused of laziness and incompetence in more than a few posts here) and all of us here who are really tired of having to explain this over, and over, and over again. It's not going to happen properly unless the FSX weather engine is completely revamped. The "analogies" being used to say "not doing weather radar is like ___" are weak at best. There's no reason to waste time trying to get something to see something that isn't there. If you really want weather radar, go buy the RXP, and find someone who hacked it together with the NGX.(and if you want to accuse them of being lazy, and using excuses, you go integrate a realistic simulation of weather radar into your own add-on...oh, that's right...you can't)

There is already a weather Radar in the NGX why you need another one?

Just to add here, but the WX Radar logic in some "Level D" sims leaves a lot to be desired most of the time. It's not as hot stuff as some of us would like to think. Implementation consists of an image typically mated to a defined weather scenario with mapped zones of weather/precip ie: it's basically an image that correlates with a plotted weather scenario. FSX on the other hand is always changing with the real weather. The reality is...sigh...it ain't gonna happen. You can manage CATIIIa approaches in this sim anyways so you'll be fine.

Very true, which is why I've always been puzzled by PMDG's high principles re WXR. Kevin Hall

Very true, which is why I've always been puzzled by PMDG's high principles re WXR.

Could be something as simple as the sims are required to have it & PMDG isn't. With the sims though, the way it was explained earlier, they basically have a preprogrammed weather scheme to match a predrawn wxr image. I've never been in a level-d sim, so I can't really comment personally on that.