To RW pilots using Active Sky

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

Hey guys,

 

I noticed that Active Sky has 'realistic up and down drafts'...something I think is sorely missing (or poorly implemented) in FSX. I remember being kicked around quite a bit by those things in the little airplanes I flew...a sudden rise of a wing...gradual gain or loss of altitude under a cloud...bumps...all that stuff. For you real world pilots using Active Sky, what do you think of it? Realistic?

[Chock 17,769]

Personally, although I was initially pleased to see the feature, since I am a keen glider pilot, in practice I found it a bit too much of a faff to set it up, and also somewhat self-defeating to do so. What I would have liked to see it doing, was implementing thermals automatically based on an algorithm which read the cloud cover, sunlight and basic terrain (land class) type (as Silent Wings does), and then plonking thermal source points upwind of the cumulus based on cloud base or inversion layer altitude and the wind speed, since that is what happens in real life.

 

After all, part of the skill and fun of gliding, is actually using your knowledge of how, why and where thermals pop by reading the signs in the sky and on the ground, in order to make use of them, so actually setting them up removes that aspect of it from the scenario to a large degree, because you literally already know where they are, and that's no fun.

 

And if it did that automatically as I would have preferred, it would still be relevant to powered aircraft, because in strong enough vertical air mass movement, you can actually climb in a powered aircraft which is throttled back, providing the glide angle ratio is exceeded by the vertical air mass movement. I've done that in a Piper Cub, actually climbing when in a descent with the engine throttled right back. Conversely, when the vertical air movement is downwards, that presents a hazard to all aircraft if the rate exceeds the aircraft's maximum rate of climb, as it often does on the backside of a hill when standing wave lift is present. More than one airliner has crashed because of that phenomenon.

 

So in short, it was good of them to consider putting it in, but I think the way they did it should have been more automated.

 

Al

[RudiJG1 172]

Al, you are aware of this program, CumulusX v1.8 (http://www.luerkens.homepage.t-online.de/peter/), right? A must-have for the FSX glider pilot.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

Not sure what's going on with that page but my firewall is saying that it's trying to connect back to my PC and it blocked it.

[LeeL 272]

I use cumulus X and it's good

 

Lee

 

 

Sent using Tapatalk

 

I use cumulus X and it's good

 

Lee

 

 

Sent using Tapatalk

[Jacoba 55]

I uses AS and as a rated pilot since 1996 I find it very realistic, but none IMHO will ever come close to the visual and physical sensations you get in a real airplane.

 

The issue isn't flashy graphics or awesome coding skills, whats missing is the seat of your pants sensations that PC BASED SIMS will never be able to recreate... this issue comes up alot when people pontificate about how good or bad a certain planes flight dynamics are or are not... I always get a giggle out of those threads...

 

Even in tier 1, $20 million level D, full motion sims run by the likes of Flight Safety and CAE. They can only get so close and even then only thru various high end tricks taking place in the visual and physical motion models.

 

[ZachLW 37]

Hey guys,

 

I noticed that Active Sky has 'realistic up and down drafts'...something I think is sorely missing (or poorly implemented) in FSX. I remember being kicked around quite a bit by those things in the little airplanes I flew...a sudden rise of a wing...gradual gain or loss of altitude under a cloud...bumps...all that stuff. For you real world pilots using Active Sky, what do you think of it? Realistic?

 

There are times when I get a great sense of realism using Active Sky. I've noticed some great behavior that simulated thermals nicely when flying small GA. No disclaimers here. We all know the obvious limitations of this simulation... As far as your posed question goes: Realistic to my needs.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

I uses AS and as a rated pilot since 1996 I find it very realistic, but none IMHO will ever come close to the visual and physical sensations you get in a real airplane.

 

So long as it's effective, it's fine. Days when the air was smooth and I was puttering around the sky below 5,000 was pretty rare for me. I remember the sudden wooshes of air that would have me and my instructor looking at each other or the gust of wind that lifted the wing that you'd have to counter (and stay on your toes the rest of the flight!). And then, after a front passed, being shoved around when you got down close to the airport that smoothed out under the treeline. Yeah, you can't mimic the fear of your b*tt being on the line in FSX either (unless the lights are off and someone sneaks up behind you...LOL). But if you can at least get some shakiness and instability that keeps you alert and gives you a few nice flashbacks...it's pretty good. :)

[Chock 17,769]

Al, you are aware of this program, CumulusX v1.8 (http://www.luerkens....nline.de/peter/), right? A must-have for the FSX glider pilot.

 

Yeah, you actually get a link to that when you buy the Aerosoft Discus, so yup, I know it, To be honest, with Condor (Condor 2 on the way incidentally) and Silent Wings, if I want some more realistic thermals, I'll use those, but I do occasionally tootle about in a glider in FSX, it's not the best for simulating soaring, but it is certainly okay.

 

As it stands though, I can't even use AS Evolution, I lost the installation file for it in a PC hard drive crash and the one on my back up drive is corrupted, so that's a bit of a moot point anyway, I just recall Active Sky EVO being like that from when I did the review of it.

 

Al