Why is there a constant lie in the fsx forum regarding no turbulence in opus? There is a thread over there which continually goes on about this. The "bump aircraft" option provides this quite nicely as far as I can tell and certainly is not a camera only effect as being depicted.

I agree Glenn, it is nonsense. You get the same in Ezydok threads as well.

Why is there a constant lie in the fsx forum regarding no turbulence in opus? There is a thread over there which continually goes on about this. The "bump aircraft" option provides this quite nicely as far as I can tell and certainly is not a camera only effect as being depicted.

 

My thoughts exactly, just yesterday I had wonderful turbulence, probable some of the best I have experienced in flight sim.

 

Lee

having read it again, I see its the folks who refuse to use DHM because they are stuck on Ezdok.

 

they also seem to be confused that "bump aircraft" is a camera only effect, which it is not.

I don't know how many times Stephen has posted how DHM works, some seem to have a mental block. And then there is those that would not use anything else. Go figure.

Well it's true, I swtiched to Active Sky 2012 because it seems like Opus turbulence was in the same area every flight.

I don't think theres a lie going around its just personal preference in the multitude of weather engines now available.

 

If you like OPUS' depiction then stick with it but not everybody has the same taste.  Some people prefer EZDOK (myself included)  some people like OPUS cams. 

 

 

I think the variety of depictions available with weather engines is good for customers.  Its just a matter of picking what you like.  I see the wx engine war is now becoming evenly splintered between the four wx engines with the latest REX update supposedly really improving weather depiciton (I wouldn't know that for a fact as I have not installed latest SP). 

 

Like I said its all a Win Win for us simmers.

 

Enjoy

 

 

D

It is nothing to do with preference. What Glenn was saying that ex opus users are saying that there is no Turbulence in fsx when using Opus, and some think "Bump Aircraft" is a camera option, which it clearly is not.

So it is not about which weather engine is best, it is about mis information posted by users who probably never read the manual or asked how it worked in the support forum

Well it's true, I swtiched to Active Sky 2012 because it seems like Opus turbulence was in the same area every flight.

I rest my case

We have recently re-measured the turbulence effects during one hour of flying in strong turbulent conditions. Both the 3D accelerometer data and Bump Aircraft (yes this option does ONLY 'bump' the aircraft ... has no efect on head movement .. it affects ONLY the aircraft's motion through the air as evident from the fluctuating HSI), both were found to be 100% accurate and in total agreement with reality (no matter what some may think).

 

Our judgement on the aircraft turbulent motions and recorded data indicated about equal motions in both pitch and yaw, which in turn were at least four times less than the banking motions. This remained the case for all turbulent motions throughout the two flights. This is in total agreement with the current DHM Bump Aircraft effects, the current release scales the turbulent motions 1:5:1 for the pitch, bank, and yaw effects derived from the original accelerometer data.

 

The simple reason why Bump Aircraft is associated with DHM is that the 'aircraft' turbulent motions are fully synchronised to the 'dynamic head movements' which in turn are derived entirely from the real-life captured 3D accelerometer data, that is accurate accelerometer data that captured the 'true' motions of the aircraft in flight (how real do you want to get).

 

Stephen :smile: 
 

I don't have any fancy cameras, have DHM off and get chucked around plenty thanks. I split my time pretty evenly between Opus & AS, so no axe to grind either way...

We really need to have a public showdown of weather engines or even a good debate between developers to make their case why X is better Y.

 

Each developer claims theirs is the most accurate and the other are "fake" or "we use better data than the Metars". 

 

Have a good ol' smackdown LOL 

 

 

Thanks for the explanation Stephen.

 

 

This is all in jest guys,  I'm not one to take my simming this serious.

See the new Bump Aircraft Option topic.

 

The fact of the matter is, if you rely on the old METAR and FSUIPC4 weather injection (the same as METARs) technique that Microsoft provided then you also fall foul of all the shortcomings. For instance, relying on the non-existant and very poor FSX weather interpolation. We (Opus Software Ltd) tried and rejected these options.

 

We pioneered a new undocumented method of weather injection at the same time developing a heuristic weather interpolation algorthm to construct our 800 x 800 mile weather map. This method of weather injection was not even thought of in all the years leading up to OpusFSX. This is the big difference in FSX weather depiction, the only way to inject accurate persistent weather within the simulator. We know because we developed three weather engines that used all the other documented methods and rejected all the methods as being inadequate.

 

Stephen :smile:

Stephen,  I do agree you have revolutionized the way weather is now portrayed in FSX.  Your system began the development of station based wx in my uneducated laymen term (I'm no programmer nor do I attempt to understand the inner workings of FSX).

 

Every other weather engine out at the time yours came out chased your coat tail to emulate the type of weather you created.  You have created a better and much more realistic visualization than we ever had in FSX.  There is a reason you won the award from Avsim.

 

The issue I see now is that your program has grown with many options and tabs; sort of like AS2012 has.  Instead of one click and you got weather; which so many loved; has now become somewhat convuluted and confusing.  Betas everyday adding new options or tabs for users to figure out what this or that does.  To be fair you had to do this due to the input and requests from hardcore simmers that wanted it all so my hats off to you for appealling to everybody.   Many simmers out there are not hardcore like Gharrel or Badfinger or even myself;  they just want to click and go.  They don't understand the concept of live camera or live weather asssitant etc and you know us simmers;  the golden rule RTFM which we do not do.  LOL

 

FSGRW is now at where you were when you came out.  One click to open, one click to download weather, one click to inject weather and your flying.  There are a few options to adjust if you want but there is no requirement to adjust those settings as default works with no issues.  It really appeals to people that just want to fire up FSX, load weather and go with smooth winds, pressures, turbulence and temps.  They don't want to mess with setting up cameras in another program when FSGRW just gives them a bounce they are looking for with no fuss. 

 

I see now you just posted that you will have the bump option without having to use camera views within OPUS.  Wonderful news,  it seems each weather engine competes with others to make a better mousetrap!

 

Well I'm rambling and am probably off topic so I'll end this and go flying with your new beta as I compare it to AS2012 and FSGRW which I also own.

 

Keep up the good work Stephen.

Many thanks Sean.

 

We have tried to keep things simple with the addition of Default buttons in all the Weather dialogs. Just turn on ALL Default options and all that is then needed is to specify your Destination and Cruise Altitude (if you want true upper winds).

 

I cannot get round these two settings since FSX needs to be coaxed and supervised to ensure correct weather at your destination, especially from great distances making sure AI trafic use the correct runway etc.. The Cruise Altitude is needed to ensure you have 'true' forecasted upper winds without sending FSX crazy.

 

I do feel asking users just to specify these two things before they fly isn't asking a lot of people. All the other options are needed only for the additional or optional features, flight planning etc., or to help some users overcome the internal FSX failings such as annoying wind shifts.

 

These things do not fix themselves within the sim, nor will FSX give accurate weather en route or at the destination without supervision and correct injection and handling. As people will find out very soon using the new 'simple' engine. FSX weather interpolation is simply useless, so relying on it just puts everyone back two+ years, back to the days when all there was was METAR and FSUIPC4 (the same) weather injection methods, giving the same old wrong ATIS, inaccurate, unpredictable and disappearing weather.

 

Stephen

I have never fully understood the turbulence in Opus but I am trying to.  Flying in light breeze in a light aircraft, my needles are rock soild, no deviation in vertical speed at all, I can trim the aircraft and it pretty much lands itself.  Maybe I have some settings incorrect.