Skymaxpro and RWC turbulence in 10.50B6

[virtualstuff 750]

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

 

Thanks,

 

Cheers,

 

Going to test again with 10.50B7

[Cameron XA 272]

RWC has nothing to do with winds at all.

[virtualstuff 750]

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 :-)

[jcomm 5,889]

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 ?

[airlinejets 709]

 

 

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.

[jcomm 5,889]

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

 

That would be GREAT News ! 

[Wynthorpe 51]

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.

[jcomm 5,889]

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.

[virtualstuff 750]

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

[Don Quixote 76]

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.

[jcomm 5,889]

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

[airlinejets 709]

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.

[Colonel X 1,428]

10.50b7 weather will give you turbulence just right (using NOAA data worldwide). Get the free and SUPERB headshake plug-in (don't forget to disable Cinéma Vérité to make it work) to see even minimal turbulence in the 3D cockpit...

 

http://www.simcoders.com/headshake/features-and-download

[Old_As_Dirt 160]

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

[Don Quixote 76]

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.