Read through this post and thinking the oposite.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/realistic-up-and-downdraft-option/360642

They also closed it so we can’t vote on that feature in realism settings anymore. 

Edited August 15, 20214 yr by dahojds

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/realistic-up-and-downdraft-option/360642

15 minutes ago, RW1 said:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/realistic-up-and-downdraft-option/360642

Edited the main post. Thank you for letting me know that the link didn’t work.

To experience the "10000 feet per minute updraft",just fly to Devils Tower in Wyoming,it took me to 53,000 feet.....

It was locked because it is not a bug it is intentionally that way. Posting it as a bug is a bit disingenuous, it implies it is faulty or bad coding which it was not.

The appropriate place to start a thread and vote for  an option to enable more realistic turbulence and weather options is the Wish List.   If there is no thread under the wish list about it, someone should start one.

If it is enabled it needs to be optional as a sudden 10,000 fpm updraft would likely rip the wings off most light aircraft instantly and even if they survived very quickly take them to an altitude where the plane suffered severe icing and the crew succumbed to oxygen deprivation in the real world.  In the current  game that would translate to a blank screen and return to main menu.  It is not as if people in the real world can take a c172 into a thunderstorm and through great elite flying skill and tenacity survive intact, various flying surfaces detach from their aircraft and they end up dead.

Here is a video about a 400 hour instrumented rated pilot that flew accidently into a storm front and within a very short time (before even being hit by the worst of the storm)  snapped a wing spar and lost the left wing on their well maintained Piper Cherokee Six with tragic results ...

 

Edited August 15, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

 

39 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

It was locked because it is not a bug it is intentionally that way. Posting it as a bug is a bit disingenuous, it implies it is faulty or bad coding which it was not.

The appropriate place to start a thread and vote for  an option to enable more realistic turbulence and weather options is the Wish List.   If there is no thread under the wish list about it, someone should start one.

If it is enabled it needs to be optional as a sudden 10,000 fpm updraft would likely rip the wings off most light aircraft instantly and even if they survived very quickly take them to an altitude where the plane suffered severe icing and the crew succumbed to oxygen deprivation in the real world.  In the current  game that would translate to a blank screen and return to main menu.  It is not as if people in the real world can take a c172 into a thunderstorm and through great elite flying skill and tenacity survive intact, various flying surfaces detach from their aircraft and they end up dead.

Here is a video about a 400 hour instrumented rated pilot that flew accidently into a storm front and within a very short time (before even being hit by the worst of the storm)  snapped a wing spar and lost the left wing on their well maintained Piper Cherokee Six with tragic results ...

 

I get it that it’s dangerous but i will not die of 10000 feet updraft in a simulator. I think it’s the point with a sim to learn it’s hard and dangerous to fly besides we can turn off damages if we want to. But we can’t turn on real drafts.

Edited August 15, 20214 yr by dahojds

1 hour ago, dahojds said:

I get it that it’s dangerous but i will not die of 10000 feet updraft in a simulator. I think it’s the point with a sim to learn it’s hard and dangerous to fly besides we can turn off damages if we want to. But we can’t turn on real drafts.

I think the point I was trying to make was surviving in a thunderstorm in a light aircraft is not realistic it is arcade.

Whether they tone down the effects to make you safe or make you immune and have you bounce about like the silver ball in a pinball machine with no ill effects it is still arcade.

Ideally, flying into a thunderstorm should almost immediately rip off your tail or wing regardless of damage settings and if they implement that it may be a good lesson for future pilots.  Letting people fly in or near storms for "fun" is not teaching anyone anything even remotely useful, and may even be teaching a dangerously flippant attitude.

I agree the current mild turbulence should be worse, I just think the disastrous effects of it should be modelled and not be able to be turned off. 

 

Edited August 15, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

When I heard Wloch said it I kinda fell on my behind (no harm done, I was already seated).

This was one of the last flight simulation frontiers. No sim has ever done that before. Tears of joy when it was announced. Then because the marketing clique thinks that newbies are too stupid to understand drafts, they dumbed down to a minimum..

 

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I think the point I was trying to make was surviving in a thunderstorm in a light aircraft is not realistic it is arcade.

Whether they tone down the effects to make you safe or make you immune and have you bounce about like the silver ball in a pinball machine with no ill effects it is still arcade.

Ideally, flying into a thunderstorm should almost immediately rip off your tail or wing regardless of damage settings and if they implement that it may be a good lesson for future pilots.  Letting people fly in or near storms for "fun" is not teaching anyone anything even remotely useful, and may even be teaching a dangerously flippant attitude.

I agree the current mild turbulence should be worse, I just think the disastrous effects of it should be modelled and not be able to be turned off. 

 

This is a game. For fun and entertainment. Not to be used for real world training. It says so right "on the box".

If people want to bounce up and down in a thunderstorm, let them. If they want to do Immelmann's under the Goden Gate Bridge, that's their prerogative. 

It's not a "teaching tool", it's a bit of fun after a hard day's work. 

Oh, and it's of course super-realistic, to immediately be able to jump into a tubeliner.

While we're on the topic of realistic: let's make it so that you have to advance through flight school, starting with the C152, or, crashing your plane into the side of a mountain means "perma death". Let's immediately see the user base shrink by 99%.

3 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I think the point I was trying to make was surviving in a thunderstorm in a light aircraft is not realistic it is arcade.

Ideally, flying into a thunderstorm should almost immediately rip off your tail or wing regardless of damage settings and if they implement that it may be a good lesson for future pilots.  Letting people fly in or near storms for "fun" is not teaching anyone anything even remotely useful, and may even be teaching a dangerously flippant attitude.

Not really. Whilst flying into a thunderstorm is potentially dangerous, it isn't guaranteed instant death. I know this from personal experience when I got into one in a glider, and it wasn't through choice, so it can certainly be the case that you can get caught out by the weather.

Vertical movement of the air mass is how things are in real life and it is of course a fundamental part of gliding too, since that is what a thermal is. It is possible to get pretty violent turbulence in a thunderstorm of course, but in all honesty when I was flying that glider in a thunderstorm, it wasn't actually very turbulent at all, it was just that there was a lot of vertical air mass movement forcing me down until I was fortunate enough to find some air which was going upwards. Thus my main concern was not the notion of the plane being ripped to pieces, but rather the rate of descent of the air mass I was flying in and the fact that I was in IMC without an artificial horizon.

Conceptually, trying to climb in a downdraft it is like being on a set of travellator steps which are going down with you trying to run up them; you may be running up, but the steps you are on are going down faster, so you still go down. The other concern I had on that occasion was the possibility of a lightning strike, which almost certainly would have destroyed the aeroplane at an altitude where I would have been lucky to have enough time to deploy my parachute.

One of the fundamental things which was an attraction to MSFS, was the promise that this vertical air movement would be in the simulator - this is what they said in one of their promotional preview videos - and so if it isn't, then I regard that as 'going back on the deal'. I really don't care if 'some people would not understand' why their aeroplane was going up or down as they flew along; that is what aeroplanes do, they fly through the air. Saying 'people wouldn't understand in a simulator so we left it out', makes about as much sense as saying we didn't put rain in the sim because some people wouldn't understand why their window was harder to see out of. After all, they could easily put a pop up on screen message in the sim which said 'you are in extreme weather and may experience strong updrafts or downdrafts which exceed the ability of your aeroplane to outclimb or out-descend them!' It's not hard to have a sim do that kind of thing, it does it for when you climb and need to lean off the mixture by reading a sim parameter, so it would be similarly easy to have an excessive vertical speed trigger a warning too.

You can select better weather in a sim if you don't like what is going on, so there is no excuse for not putting bad weather, and all its associated effects, in a simulator. And more importantly, it was sold to me on the basis that it would have this feature, so if it doesn't, that was false advertising.

 

 

Edited August 15, 20214 yr by Chock

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

When I heard Wloch said it I kinda fell on my behind (no harm done, I was already seated).

This was one of the last flight simulation frontiers. No sim has ever done that before. Tears of joy when it was announced. Then because the marketing clique thinks that newbies are too stupid to understand drafts, they dumbed down to a minimum..

 

Yes, i was so hyped for all the simulated wind effects. Hope they come back as opitions for us who want to experience what can happen in real life.

3 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I think the point I was trying to make was surviving in a thunderstorm in a light aircraft is not realistic it is arcade.

Whether they tone down the effects to make you safe or make you immune and have you bounce about like the silver ball in a pinball machine with no ill effects it is still arcade.

Ideally, flying into a thunderstorm should almost immediately rip off your tail or wing regardless of damage settings and if they implement that it may be a good lesson for future pilots.  Letting people fly in or near storms for "fun" is not teaching anyone anything even remotely useful, and may even be teaching a dangerously flippant attitude.

I agree the current mild turbulence should be worse, I just think the disastrous effects of it should be modelled and not be able to be turned off. 

 

i agree that it needs to be toggled as all the other assists we have.

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

While we're on the topic of realistic: let's make it so that you have to advance through flight school, starting with the C152.

That is a real good idea i think. But it needs to be optional these days for those who like careers.

5 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

 

That makes it challenging to land. Would be so awesome to have that simulated for us who want to experience it.