If that's the case, I would think ASN's windshear warning aural would sound (If it's working right). It didn't.

If it didn't AND it was enabled, it wasn't wind shear. You can also bring up the radar gauge and get a visual representation of the windshear alley. Might want to use historical weather to repeat the flight and watch the gauge and the debug window (Tools-debug window) in ASN to see what is being sent to FSX.

 

Vic

On final and descending from 1500 feet, I flew right into a wind shear "alley" as depicted on the map page.... and not even the slightest wind variation of even 2 knots was observed.

nodda ting

During beta testing we went round and round on this - those who were not RW pilots were worried that the turbulence was too much - those of us who have a bit of RW stick time thought it was tame.

 

Up till now, turbulence, wind shear and wake turbulence in FSX have been only lightly modeled and mostly accomplished by head shakers. ASN is as close as you are going to get to real life in a sim. If you try to fly through a thunderstorm in FSX *now* - you are asking for some big trouble.

 

As far as a bit much - how about a rapid aileron roll in a Piper Cherokee hitting severe wake turbulence? Happened IRL so why not in FSX?

 

Vic

 

As a real world pilot, I think the turbulence severity at cruise is fine.  However, I think the frequency of turbulence and/or windshear close to the ground (whichever it is supposedly modelling) is too much.  +30 Kts or more (and it has yet to be negative) on final has happened on about 3 out of my last 5 flights descending through 1,500 AFE into CAVOK conditions with no AIRMETs or SIGMETs.  Any airspeed changes of +/- 30 knots is severe windshear, which in of itself is fine (modelling wise), but the frequency in which it seems to be occurring all throughout the world isn't common and in too similar of circumstance.  It is as if it is occurring on a routine basis; not forecast or current conditions.

Without seeing the logs of the flight it's hard to determine exactly what you were experiencing and whether or not it was generated by ASN. That's why I like to keep the debug window open - if ASN is sending turbulence or wind shear - you'll see it there first *before* you get any effect. If you don't see it there and you still get the fluctuations, something else is going on. If it's happening to you as frequently as you indicate, open the debug window and see if turb is present.

 

I'm wondering - we also use the terrain in modelling turbulence - were there any strong winds perhaps coming off ridges, etc?

 

most of all - enjoy your flights -

 

Vic

To echo Greg... I think the frequency of the turbulence is overdone.  To give ASN credit, it is doing a good job of re-creating turbulence exactly where airmets are in effect... and at the correct altitudes.  The problem for me is that it doesn't provide much variation... it seems to be all moderate turbulence in these areas.  My experience is that is should be more light chop with occasional bouts of moderate.  Add to it that the moderate induces too much rolling motion (it should be more yaw), it just seems a bit much.

 

 

Add to it that the moderate induces too much rolling motion (it should be more yaw), it just seems a bit much.

 

The question here though, is the problem the weather engine, or the way the FS aircraft models FDE handle the effects?

The question here though, is the problem the weather engine, or the way the FS aircraft models FDE handle the effects?

I should have clarified... I don't think the wx engine can do anything about the turbulence effect on a particular aircraft... it's just the way it is in FSX (also why DHM effects are pretty popular). I brought up the excessive rolling only to point out that otherwise "realistic" amounts of turbulence produce an exaggerated effect in FSX and often need to be toned down.

 

 

To echo Greg... I think the frequency of the turbulence is overdone.

 

The more I read here and on the HiFi forum, the more I become convinced that there's something else going on besides just what ASN is providing.  I've been flying with ASN for 9 days now, sampling a variety of conditions, seasons and geographies (eg high mountain airports, coastal airports...), and from my perspective and familiarity with the aircraft types and places I'm flying I side with the "just a bit underdone" crowd.

 

We can't all be right, and we can't all be wrong, so what's the difference between those of us who'd like to see the dial cranked up just a bit and those who think it's a bit overdone?

 

In my case, I'm flying GA aircraft (Turbine and Piston Dukes, B55 Baron, C337, C210 and Piper Malibu in the last 9 days) with no other head shake/camera management software, though the new Duke does have shake enhancements built into the model.

 

Scott

I see the problem more as a subjective difference. What *I* consider moderate *you* might consider severe or light. I'm thinking that finer control over the duration and strength might be in order.

 

My main objection to THAT suggestion, however - we worked VERY hard to slim down the UI and the options in ASN. One of the main complaints about AS2012 was that the options were too confusing. Now we're talking about adding back more.

 

As I said, it needs looking into but HiFi has always tried to respond to customer requests if at all possible.

 

Vic

 

 

I see the problem more as a subjective difference. What *I* consider moderate *you* might consider severe or light.

 

That was my original thought as well, but as the discussions have evolved it sounds to me more and more as though we're seeing something substantively different from each other.

 

 

 

My main objection to THAT suggestion, however - we worked VERY hard to slim down the UI and the options in ASN. One of the main complaints about AS2012 was that the options were too confusing. Now we're talking about adding back more.

 

It's tough, and I certainly do appreciate the simplicity and straightforward UI.  That was one of the very first things that struck me.

 

Please don't misunderstand - I'm very pleased with what I'm getting.  Wouldn't have purchased at the end of the demo period of I wasn't.  It's just curious how differently several of us seem to be seeing this aspect of the product.

 

Scott

In my case, I'm flying GA aircraft (Turbine and Piston Dukes, B55 Baron, C337, C210 and Piper Malibu in the last 9 days)

Now that you bring it up... it does seem like the effect is more pronounced on the larger, faster planes than smaller GA aircraft... it should be the other way around. It could just be coincidence though... will have to do more flying to draw a definite conclusion on that. My concern is more on how often moderate or greater turbulence is encountered rather than the severity of it. Of course, it's also winter in the north and there's definitely a lot more bumps this time of year.

Airspeed changes that significant isn't turbulence - it's windshear.  +/- 40-50 Knots is massive (in the real world) and in no way would anyone ever land in that.

 

That's my point....Debug Window was indicating moderate turbulence and in absolutely no way in RW moderate turbulence causes such IAS changes.....

I think the problem is the Airmets and Sigmets are put out covering a very large area to begin with. This is to cover any moving storm fronts, etc... during the forecast period. In reality pilots will not experience the turbulence whilst flying over the entire boundary of the Airmet or Sigmet but more than likely will encounter it at some point while in it.

So the problem is how does HiFi which from what I read has the code set up so that once you enter the boundary you will get turbulence until you fly out of the boundary? When as stated above is not the case real world. I think instead of them adding something to the UI for turbulence modification by the user they should develop a algorithm on the back end that modifies the amount of time we experience turbulence within the boundary. Maybe based on a percentage value. So say the boundary is 200 miles wide and your flying eat to west across it, some times you will get it maybe anywhere from 30 to 80% of the time.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

Hi Jackson, about the IAS changes, please make sure you disable wx in fsuipc (and you use the latest ASN hotfix and fsuipc version). Take a look at this thread: http://www.hifitechinc.com/forums/showthread.php?2168-wind-quot-ticking-quot-during-climbout-descent-(networked-config)

 

As for sigmet/airmet related turbulence, there is some variation in the turbulence level introduced by ASN inside the boundaries of an issued sigmet/airmet. However, I agree with Eric this variation should become a little bit more pronounced. The main point here though is that if you see e.g. an airmet being active from FL270/330, this means that the met office issuing this has detected unstable atmosphere/winds at this level in this particular area and you should actually try to alter your flight level (stemp climb?) to avoid it. Making it too random or too subtle, would defeat the point we try to make with ASN that "weather actually matters"

 

Kostas Terzides

ASN developer

Hi Kostas,

 

Thanks for looking into this.  While I generally agree with your philosophy on trying to avoid the weather... this should really apply more to sigmets than airmets.  Airmets are are just so common and far ranging (as well as often covering low altitudes), that it is usually impossible to avoid these areas.  When I was a controller, we usually just threw all the airmets in the trash because they really didn't meaningfully impact our operations.  Great job on ASN... it really is revolutionary.