23 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

And where did you see realistic implementation of turbulence? In X-plane?

I've never flown X-plane very much. Regarding PC sims, as it has been said in the other thread, ActiveSky in P3D did very good job. However, even if we assume no sim has had it, I don't see how bad implementation can be warranted by this fact alone. If one takes a position that something has never been done and is probably impossible because due to inadequate PC capabilities or whatever, then there is no point in trying to make a realistic simulator. This sim's FD has been sold as one of the most realistic up-to-date models of the airplane interaction with the air, but it is not what I currently see. (Contrary, Lockheed has never praised the aforementioned P3D to the rafters in this regard and nobody has ever expected anything of it.) Finally, I'm surprised to find your switching of opinion so drastically. When we were testing the Alpha/Beta your view seemed to be more on the sober side.

Edited September 2, 20205 yr by ilya1502

On 8/30/2020 at 9:16 PM, daniel_schm said:

I noticed the same strange behavior everywhere outside Europe. Seems the live weather only works in Europe. 

Flew in Chile today and noticed the same behaviour on the TBM.

Also weather bug seems to be stuck in 3kts.

 

Out of interest does anyone have a joystick and Xbox controller connected?

I have noticed this type of behaviour if you play a game that uses the joypad (e.g. GTA) then come off and try to run MSFS2020. The menus are all over the place, flickering between KBM options and the joypad options. When I tried flying the plane was bouncing around all over the place in still air. When I opened the menu to check joystick settings, the usual "config" testing the axis was not working.

So appears definitely a conflict if you have both devices connected and you don't start FS from a cold boot, i.e. not playing anything else beforehand.

1 hour ago, ilya1502 said:

I've never flown X-plane very much. Regarding PC sims, as it has been said in the other thread, ActiveSky in P3D did very good job. However, even if we assume no sim has had it, I don't see how bad implementation can be warranted by this fact alone. If one takes a position that something has never been done and is probably impossible because due to inadequate PC capabilities or whatever, then there is no point in trying to make a realistic simulator. This sim's FD has been sold as one of the most realistic up-to-date models of the airplane interaction with the air, but it is not what I currently see. (Contrary, Lockheed has never praised the aforementioned P3D to the rafters in this regard and nobody has ever expected anything of it.) Finally, I'm surprised to find your switching of opinion so drastically. When we were testing the Alpha/Beta your view seemed to be more on the sober side.

I haven't flown sim yet that realistically simulate turbulence. At the moment I'm ok with FS2020. Yes those oscillation around  lateral axis a bit far fetched, but over all it's not bad. 

I could be arrogantly wrong by my impression that guys who fly small or midsize GA airplanes experience turbulence in its worst. Especially those freight dogs who hauled cargo in smaller airplane in virtually any weather. There is even a joke about turbulence pireps when B737 reporting light chip while 172 reports severe turbulence! 🙂 

What’s sad is most that keep starting these turbulence threads don’t understand temp affects on aircraft throughout the year.  I’ll leave it that...

47 minutes ago, Dillon said:

What’s sad is most that keep starting these turbulence threads don’t understand temp affects on aircraft throughout the year.  I’ll leave it that...

Many of us here understand that, thanks.

If the sim showed calm air in the morning and rough air in the afternoon, that would be realistic but it's not doing that. This is one of the first things I learned when I started doing commercial aerial photography in light Cessnas and helicopters back in the day. You shoot early when you can. The sim isn't behaving like that.

It appears to be throwing a random number on every flight to decide how much turbulence there will be, and the turbulence is an artificial effect not related to weather or moving in and out of clouds.

It acts on the pitch/roll/yaw axis of the plane, as if your'e causing it with flight controls, instead of the plane being embedded in a turbulent air mass. In real turbulence, you experience vertical lift and drop as well as motion in the other axes. 

I suspect (along with others) that's it's an artificial attempt to avoid criticism that the flight model is "on rails." There doesn't appear to be an actual connection to the air you're flying in.

 

58 minutes ago, Dillon said:

What’s sad is most that keep starting these turbulence threads don’t understand temp affects on aircraft throughout the year.  I’ll leave it that...

They do Dillon. There are plenty of experienced PPL and pro-pilots on this and other threads. I think the point you are missing is that EVEN in still air there are artificial oscillations going on that are clearly a superimposed effect, apart from the way over-the-top turbulence effects. If it was more subtle it might be convincing. Have another look at the example cessna video above. No aircraft would ever move in this way. Five minutes of that kind of movement would seriously compromise the main spars.

 

What's sad is that most that keep replying to these turbulence threads don't understand that different latitudes will experience different flying conditions. Convective currents in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand are likely to be less intense than subtropical SoCal or Florida.

I've been able to fly standard rate turns and find my own wake turblence on completing the full turn on days where the only flicker of movement of any of the instrument needles has been the engine tachometer.

Some of the most turbulent air I've ever flown in was on a sunny day one April over N.E. Texas with no significant weather.
 

8 minutes ago, F737NG said:

What's sad is that most that keep replying to these turbulence threads don't understand that different latitudes will experience different flying conditions. Convective currents in the UK, Ireland and New Zealand are likely to be less intense than subtropical SoCal or Florida.

It can vary by geography but it's not easy to generalize because time of day is such a big factor.

For example, I did my commercial airphoto flights in South Florida, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. The majority were flown out of Miami, typically before noon in good weather (few clouds). I don't recall feeling much turbulence at all on those flights. As a photographer concerned with camera shake, turbulence is something you pay attention to, even more than the pilot. I'm sure there was more turbulence in the late afternoon when the thunderstorms start rolling in across the Everglades, but obviously that's not a good scenario for a photo flight.

These flights were also at low altitude, so I have no experience with things like clear air turbulence at high altitudes.

To the posters who keep saying others do not understand where turbulence exists or doesn't, or that intensity of it changes depending on your location/temperature/terrain/conditions etc etc ad infinitum - yes I think most people DO perfectly understand. That is not the issue. The issue is that the baked-in oscillations AND turbulence are over the top in the way small aircraft react. 

Go fly the Cessna 152 and just watch it in any turbulence/weather/landscape from spot view. It is not just that the implementation is simply not believable. It is also that the way the aircraft reacts is not of a machine that has a mass of 1,600 pounds - more like a small radio controlled aircraft with a mass of 300x less. Yes, small aircraft do react to air flow changes and up/down drafts. But they do not move around like toys.

Just look at the aircraft from exterior view! To me it is blindingly clear.

MFS has defined "local turbulence" pretty much in the same way Austin defined it for XP10 and then XP11.

It's rather erratic if set above med intensities, which can be tuned in MFS in a way that is not possible in X-plane ( for the sake of comparison ). We can adjust the amount of shear, wind speed / gust and period for the weather engine to make it materialize into it's effects.

It's a clever move, and I look forward for more detailed SDK documentation regarding the weather variables and how their values can be "injected" on-the-fly.

There are then updrafts and downdrafts caused by terrain and obstacles but I am not sure how it is actually being created.

I would like to see some way to manually adjust this new parameters even when real weather is used. This is something I have been asking also in another simulator I play with - ELITE XTS  in that case because turbulence is practically omitted when using real world weather.

I begin to seriously think that, contrarily to my initial fears, there will be lot's of room in MFS for good weather injection products.

6 hours ago, robert young said:

It is also that the way the aircraft reacts is not of a machine that has a mass of 1,600 pounds - more like a small radio controlled aircraft with a mass of 300x less. Yes, small aircraft do react to air flow changes and up/down drafts. But they do not move around like toys.

How are moments of inertia around the 3 axes set in the configuration files for default GA aircraft? If they're underestimated, that could be one possible factor for the exaggerated reactions.

On the other hand, if they're about correct instead, then the problem lies in the turbulence modeling itself.

29 minutes ago, Murmur said:

How are moments of inertia around the 3 axes set in the configuration files for default GA aircraft? If they're underestimated, that could be one possible factor for the exaggerated reactions.

On the other hand, if they're about correct instead, then the problem lies in the turbulence modeling itself.

The inertia values for some of the aircraft seem to me to be exaggerated either way: But the values themselves don't really matter that much. It depends how the core physics are interpreting them. I don't pay too much fine attention to inertia values as to mathematical correctness. I just look at the way the aircraft behaves then adjust. I think Asobo have already acknowledged there is an inertia problem, but whether they will fix it soon is anyone's guess.

I suspect they have hundreds of other things higher on their list.

2 hours ago, robert young said:

The inertia values for some of the aircraft seem to me to be exaggerated either way: But the values themselves don't really matter that much. It depends how the core physics are interpreting them. I don't pay too much fine attention to inertia values as to mathematical correctness. I just look at the way the aircraft behaves then adjust. I think Asobo have already acknowledged there is an inertia problem, but whether they will fix it soon is anyone's guess.

I suspect they have hundreds of other things higher on their list.

I'm curious, go to your 'General' settings and find 'Flight Model'.  Change it from whatever it is now and test.  The two options are 'Modern' and 'Legacy'.

Edited September 3, 20205 yr by Dillon

8 hours ago, Dillon said:

I'm curious, go to your 'General' settings and find 'Flight Model'.  Change it from whatever it is now and test.  The two options are 'Modern' and 'Legacy'.

I've been editing and tweaking the Legacy and Modern flight models from day one, but thanks anyway.