Have you seen this video?
Please tell me your opinion.
Windshear detection is pretty important in a modern airliners, the absence of which can result in deadly consequences. I donāt think Asobo should be so quick to dismiss the concerns of itās customers and aircraft development partners.
Here, Iāll 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 didnāt try it for themselves, or are using the incorrect return mode and instead using the NEXRAD style one.
NEXRAD style mode at 10Kft:
Thank you so much. Interesting.
However, my understanding is limited. Sorry.
Please join the Fenix Discord and talk to them.
Yes you can. Please see the demonstration in the post above: Official Discussion: September 29, 2022 Development Update - #24 by Bishop398
The Fenix Team can join the Working Title Discord which has a dedicated Avionics Framework Channel:
https://discord.com/channels/750764704175226992/869745834940583936
What do you mean? I am not on the Fenix team.
In any case, I think we are talking about different fidelity requirements.
I saw a similar discussion on the WT team Discord.
They stated that you can make a useful radar without a 3D radar.
But Fenix and PMDG are looking for is a higher fidelity.
I think you misunderstand. Firstly ātheyā is me, since Iām Matt of WT. . My claim was only that you donāt need all the super advanced features to make a useful and accurate core weather radar experience. Iām 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. Iām 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.
Well, you were asking one of the Principals of Working Title to join the conversation on the Fenix Team. Weāre letting you know Working Title has open channels for any developer interested in using or learning about the open avionics framework - so you can let Fenix team know they can join there.
What aircraft are you using here? The PMDG 737 still shows the radar as inoperable. Is that going to be rectified? Iām very confused after seeing these screenshots as to what aircraft this will show up in because you didnāt specify the aircraft these shots are taken from.
Iām using the Longitude.
There seems to be a good deal of confusion around the weather radar in general. This level of weather radar capability has always been present in the simulator, since sim launch. However, the API was only available to Javascript instruments, and not WASM instruments. The stock bizjets, the airliners, and the Caravan have had weather radar for some time.
I think since folks heard from PMDG that weather radar is not possible, they assumed that there was not weather radar in the sim at all, which is not true. There has always been a weather radar simulation, just unavailable to PMDG in WASM. However, now this sim weather radar graphics API is available to both JS and WASM (what PMDG/Fenix have built the sim side of their planes in), so they can also access this capability.
It is still up to the developer to use this API and implement the display, however. Just because the weather radar capability exists for WASM users does not mean it automatically shows up: it requires some code to pass the right parameters to the API, get the bitmap back, suitably display the bitmap in a place in your instrument, wire up range and gain into your cockpit behaviors, etc.
Sorry Matt, I know who you are but was not aware of it.
I am not a developer so it is difficult for me to further the discussion.
Simply, one of the famous developers states that enough, other one states that not enough.
I wondered about that, so I wanted to talk.
If possible, I would like them to talk, resolve any variance in understanding(if it exists), and reach the best possible conclusion.
(Sorry, I am not a native English speaker )
I did not know he is the WT team. Sorry.
When I did fly the stock aircraft (787,747 Longitude etc) I did have good wx radar. But I havenāt touched them since buying the PMDG (before that I flew the a320 nx almost exclusively), so I got very used to having no wx radar.
I gather that, if PMDG (and Fenix) wanted to do so, they could implement it. I suppose that it may be time to twist PMDGās arms in order to have it! I just donāt want to get on their bad sideš
Folks - just as a reminder, if you feel strongly about a third party product (i.e., not MS-Asobo made) utilizing a feature within the Software Development Kit, the best place to express your feedback is on their support forums. They arenāt necessarily monitoring these threads.
Is there a specific reason they went with a āfixed tiltā option?
Folks - just as a reminder, if you feel strongly about a third party product (i.e., not MS-Asobo made) utilizing a feature within the Software Development Kit, the best place to express your feedback is on their support forums. They arenāt necessarily monitoring these threads.
This is directly regarding MSFSās weather API deficiencies. The only implication that it has for third parties is that (along with MSFS default AC), 3rd party aircraft also donāt have access to the weather data needed to simulate a full-featured WX radar.
The API is not being exposed. However, Matt/WT just showed how the radar can be implemented accordingly.
Hi Matt. Would it be possible if you got in touch with Aamir about this? Maybe if you can explain to Aamir that the weather radar API can definitely do most of what Fenix wants, that would help to resolve some of the confusion that Fenix has about the weather radar API.