Sign in to follow this  
awf

Skymaxpro and RWC turbulence in 10.50B6

Recommended Posts

Just one question should there be turbulence above Europe with real world wx?

 

Thanks,

 

Cheers,

 

Going to test again with 10.50B7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

RWC has nothing to do with winds at all.

 

Thanks for the answer appreciated and I'm aware of that but the combination

with 10.50B6 and RWC and real world wx download XP default should give turbulence...

(which my RWC should be the bridge between metar and cloud depiction and skymaxpro)

Just curious if some interfere between the rest....

Ok will have a look from a different perspective then :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know what triggers turbulence in XPlane's weather engine, specially in aloft scenarios.

 

I know that the NOAA plugin takes into consideration SIGMET, and if turb is reported, like for instance today next to Gibraltar:

 

LECM SIGMET 2 VALID 170700/171100 LEVA-
LECM MADRID FIR SEV TURB FCST S OF N3610 AND W OF W00510
SFC/FL040 STNR NC=

 

it injects it into XPlane.

 

In the past I have used the NOAA plugin with SMPv3 and RWC with no problem. I guess RWC only tries to set better continuity to weather visuals, without interfering with the physics ... So, I would tend to believe it is more a problem of beta 6 itself ( ? ) 

 

While I know that starting 10.45 XPlane now injects winds ( and temp too ? ) aloft for the whole World, I do not know it it also reads SIGMET like the NOAA plugin does ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


While I know that starting 10.45 XPlane now injects winds ( and temp too ? ) aloft for the whole World, I do not know it it also reads SIGMET like the NOAA plugin does ?

 

I may be wrong but I believe that 10.50b integrates the NOAA plugin into it's weather engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but I believe that 10.50b integrates the NOAA plugin into it's weather engine.

 

That would be GREAT News ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but I believe that 10.50b integrates the NOAA plugin into it's weather engine.

 

Im not sure its the actually plugin, but they get data from NOAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure its the actually plugin, but they get data from NOAA.

 

That's probably more like it... Most weather injectors, actually All, use NOAA as a METAR source. Some use their own numerical weather models at their datacenters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probably more like it... Most weather injectors, actually All, use NOAA as a METAR source. Some use their own numerical weather models at their datacenters.

 

Thanks guys but still it's like flying on rails here with the IXEG 737, just wondering running 10.50B7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, turbulence does seem pretty rare, no matter what weather addons you're using. I've tried the default real-world weather, the NOAA plugin, EFASS, and FSGRW. Of these, the NOAA plugin seems to do the best job, and I occasionally encounter turbulence at altitude, but it's rare. Other than that, turbulence only seems to exist in or close to storms.

This isn't particular to the new beta though, from what I remember it's been like this for quite a while. In the early versions of XP10, turbulence was way more pronounced, people complained about it, and it was significantly reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get plenty of it sometimes around where I fly the most...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get plenty of it sometimes around where I fly the most...

Actually, I haven't had a flight without some turbulence lately. Right now, I'm using the XPX 10.50b7 weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for kicks, in my beta copy, I disabled (took out) the python interface and all the other python stuff and left SkyMaxxPro and RWC in.  I do not use LUA.  The skies look pretty good and the clouds (with the "get weather" option turned on) are scattered all the way to the horizon.  Best I have seen yet for cloud rendering.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get plenty of it sometimes around where I fly the most...

 

Actually, I haven't had a flight without some turbulence lately. Right now, I'm using the XPX 10.50b7 weather.

 

Do you guys fly in the US? I tend to get some turbulence nearly always when flying in the US, but almost never in Europe (except in storms).

 

I think I remember having read once that the data sources are quite different worldwide, and that the US has a lot more information available than most other places. Perhaps the new weather sources used in 10.50b can now provide wind information for different altitudes, but not for other conditions such as turbulence because such data simply isn't available outside of the US?

 

(Remember that METARs are not the only source of weather information and don't contain complete data by far!)

 

 

 

 The skies look pretty good and the clouds (with the "get weather" option turned on) are scattered all the way to the horizon.  Best I have seen yet for cloud rendering.

 

I agree that the clouds & sky look "pretty nice" with SMP+RWC. The problem, in my opinion, is that they always look the same - nice blue skies scattered with a varying amount of cumulus clouds, with the occasional thunderstorm cloud (which looks like a mushroom cloud after a nuclear detonation!) thrown in. Individually it looks great, but the overall impression is somewhat artificial for my taste.

On the other hand, SMP+RWC have the very significant advantage of being persistent, unlike the default weather engine which can change from heavy overcast to cloudless blue skies with 50+ nm visibility within a fraction of a second...

 

Having just tested the new AS16 for P3D has unfortunately strengthened my impression that weather depiction is still the weakest point of XP10. Let's hope that XP11 will improve on this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

I use XP10 mostly in Europe, and specially in Portugal and Spain.

 

METAR data, and AIREP / PIREP, are the only available observational data. All of the rest are forecasts, not observations ( TAF ) and weather charts ( WAFS ) and other products.

 

As a long time beta tester for HiFiTech, I know it's a different world when it comes to weather modeling on both simulators, but the NOAA plugin does a remarkable job in injecting weather, and is indeed my preferred.

 

Just as a side not, I work at the Portuguese Metoffice, so... that's my business :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your explanation José! In that case you obviously know what you are talking about. :smile:

 

Interestingly, among the rare cases where I've encountered turbulence in Europe, were two flights across the Pyrenees, and it was some serious turbulence too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys fly in the US?

 

I usually fly from KJFK or KMIA to some destination in the Caribbean. So that might explain the turbulence and winds. Since b6, I have not been getting the disappearing cloud formations. Sure, some fade in and fade out of clouds is seen but nothing major.

 

I agree AS + ASCA looks promising. REX is coming out with Skyforce 3D that looks fantastic.  That might tempt me to have a look at P3D V3, we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


they always look the same - nice blue skies scattered with a varying amount of cumulus clouds

 

When I had the Python/NOAA working, I most always had clouds around me, even with the latest betas.  When I realized that 10.50b was using NOAA in the native program, it seemed worth the time to test without the plugin.  Today, I saw some low cumulus about 40 miles away (this is US guys) and flew toward them, watching them increase in size until I was in them.  Beautiful soft semi-transparent  with puffs.  Blue skies?  Yes, but that's the local weather and it seemed as real as in any simulator I have ever used.  Also, with RWC, no sudden changes.  Consistent build up and decrease on the other side.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so you're using the default weather as a source for SMP/RWC? Admittedly I hadn't thought about that, always been using the NOAA plugin (until 10.50b the default weather was pretty much useless outside of the US). I'll give it a try now! :smile:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

I use XP10 mostly in Europe, and specially in Portugal and Spain.

 

METAR data, and AIREP / PIREP, are the only available observational data. All of the rest are forecasts, not observations ( TAF ) and weather charts ( WAFS ) and other products.

 

As a long time beta tester for HiFiTech, I know it's a different world when it comes to weather modeling on both simulators, but the NOAA plugin does a remarkable job in injecting weather, and is indeed my preferred.

 

Just as a side not, I work at the Portuguese Metoffice, so... that's my business :-)

 

Well have been countless times above up in the skies (Netherlands), but find that with testing the default wx which

should have the NOAA data incorporate, that it's to smooth compared to real life ;-)

Just wondering maybe a setting or a conflict or the beta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this