Turbulence

[F737MAX 5,557]

2 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

Watching the clips linked above I can only say: “If you don’t like it in the sim, you would hate r/w flying”.

I hope you note that I said 'plenty of days', not 'most days' and certainly not 'the majority of days'.

The fact is that there are parts of the World, (and I've been fortunate to pilot in a few of them) where the flying conditions just don't match those as described by plenty of simmers on here living in the United States. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't have thought that Brisbane, Australia, would experience an "arctic high pressure zone".
The whole World's flight model shouldn't be based on flying conditions as experienced by those living in the United States, namely, if you can control your aircraft when it's sunny, it's not turbulent enough.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the complaints that there isn't enough turbulence in certain situations are also valid. It's just that turbulence shouldn't *ALWAYS* be present as it seems to be now.
I'd like to see a slider which acts like a turbulence intensifier multiple. E.g. x0 = 'OFF', x0.5 = 'Can I dip my toe in?', x1 = 'ON' (Turb as now), x2 = 'Somewhere over the Rockies', x3 = 'Mexican Jumping Bean', x4 = 'd@zk!;cq$z - We're not in Kansas now, Toto'. 😆

Just give us the option to set it how we want to experience it.

[Captain747 63]

1 hour ago, JRBarrett said:

I am certain it is not a simple “baked in” effect. I have done extensive testing in the last few days using the default 172 in various locations around the US, both with Live Weather active and with the clear sky preset. The effect is very dependent on the surface temperature, and also the temperature lapse rate between the surface and the altitude of the aircraft. (Turbulence generated by thermal lift will be stronger when the lapse rate is steep). For a given altitude, the effect is stronger at midday than early morning, and in all cases, it decreases as you climb higher. They are clearly doing some kind of thermodynamic calculations in the atmosphere model to generate the effect - it is not a simple “turbulence off/on” condition as some have implied.

I no longer actively fly as a PPL in the r/w, but between 1976 and 2010 I logged close to 1000 hours in a variety of light aircraft. I started my flight training in the Mojave desert of California, (in summer) and thermal turbulence was a simple fact of life. It was always present every single day from about 10:00 AM on, and if I had a mid afternoon lesson scheduled, I could count on a rough ride. It was far worse than in any of the video clips a few posts above.

I have lived in the northeast since 1982, and did most of my r/w flying here. Yes, I have seen the air “smooth as glass” occasionally but more often than not there is always some bumpiness. True “smooth as glass” conditions were typically only found in mid-winter with a arctic high pressure zone in the area, and (interestingly) in mid-summer with a stagnant gulf airmass in the northeast when temperatures both at the surface and aloft were much higher than normal, and the resulting lapse rate very low.

Watching the clips linked above I can only say: “If you don’t like it in the sim, you would hate r/w flying”. None of the clips show anything beyond what I classify as “mild” turbulence. It does not look (or feel) at all unrealistic, and I am absolutely certain it is not a simple hard-coded, “baked in” effect.

However, I do think Asobo should implement a slider for those who do not like the effect, to either reduce it or eliminate it entirely.

 

My final thoughts:

 

After reading all the reactions it is obvious that opinions are clearly mixed on this...to say the least.

It is obvious that there is an exaggerated baked in turbulence effect...but it is also obvious that a lot of people (if not most) are totally not affected by it...or simply just don't care that its there...well that being said...good for you if it doesn't bother you in the least...but please have some respect and consideration for those amongst us that are deeply annoyed by it...I mean we can't force you to see what is obviously clearly there...because if it was not there...then I would be the only one complaining...which is not the case...becuase many others like me are complaining...which means it definitely exists!...so call all of us crazy if you want to...but we are not seeing ghosts...we are reporting an issue that is deeply disturbing for us who are affected...yes... we might be in the minority...but we are there!...and we are the ones who have to deal with the issue...so we humbly ask all of those who don't see this is as a problem or who are equally not affected by it to at the very least try and support our cause and help us to convince Asobo to implement an adjustable option for this.

Furthermore it does not make much sense to even continue with these discussions because like I said before the opinions on this matter are very mixed amongst the Community...and just to avoid any further friction and disagreements lets just all for the sake of peace and harmony just try and support each other and help each other.

 

 

My final wish for Asobo:

 

Please implement a user adjustable option/slider/parameter so that everyone can set their own stipulations for what concerns turbulence.  We all know you guys can do it...just like we have adjustable sliders for everything else, this can also be implemented.

 

I rest my case

Thanks for your time and support.

 

 

Capt747 out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Captain747

[Simmer2308 22]

11 minutes ago, Captain747 said:

 

I rest my case

Thanks for your time and support.

 

 

Capt747 out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said .

I would add to your post as 'Thanks for your little time and NON support...

Simmer 2308 out.

Edited May 23, 2022 by Simmer2308

[MrBitstFlyer 3,837]

12 minutes ago, Captain747 said:

Please implement a user adjustable option/slider/parameter so that everyone can set their own stipulations for what concerns turbulence.

I agree a slider makes sense, because I feel the sim needs a lot more turbulence to be realistic.  If the weather models say the conditions are smooth then that is great, but if the weather models say high turbulence then that is great too.  My setting will always be on realistic.

I think the language used caused the confusion.  This turbulence was described as crazy, unflyable, upsetting and even likely for the wing to fall off, but it was nothing of the sort.

 

[JRBarrett 3,049]

20 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

The fact is that there are parts of the World, (and I've been fortunate to pilot in a few of them) where the flying conditions just don't match those as described by plenty of simmers on here living in the United States. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't have thought that Brisbane, Australia, would experience an "arctic high pressure zone".

Of course smooth conditions do not require “Arctic high pressure” - it’s just one example in which one can almost be guaranteed to have extremely smooth air, but “perfectly smooth” conditions are far less common than at least some amount of thermal updrafts and downdrafts.

I do not find the turbulence effect currently implemented in MSFS to be excessive. It is not always present, and it definitely depends on time of day, underlying terrain (land or water) and altitude. 

I absolutely agree that there should be a slider to diminish or eliminate the effect for those who do not want it.

[Captain747 63]

17 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

Of course smooth conditions do not require “Arctic high pressure” - it’s just one example in which one can almost be guaranteed to have extremely smooth air, but “perfectly smooth” conditions are far less common than at least some amount of thermal updrafts and downdrafts.

I do not find the turbulence effect currently implemented in MSFS to be excessive. It is not always present, and it definitely depends on time of day, underlying terrain (land or water) and altitude. 

I absolutely agree that there should be a slider to diminish or eliminate the effect for those who do not want it.

 

The mission now is...to convince Asobo!...

Any ideas?...

 

[RandallR 444]

I'll have to agree with JRBarrett - I do not find the majority of the videos to contain much turbulence.  In fact, I'd say that MS/Asobo is getting closer and closer to what I've experienced in the RW.  Another factor on the appearance is so many of the views are from outside of the aircraft instead of inside, so the bumps and air movement are magnified a little in comparison to the "feel" in the cockpit.

I did most of my training and PPL flying in the early 70's thru the early 80's - most of it in northern Illinois with occasional forays into Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, etc.  The occasional bumps and rocking you see in your videos is very reminiscent of those days.  The only days that were really smooth for the whole flight were winter days - as soon as it got warmer the air would move the aircraft in a very similar manner to what we're experiencing now - in fact, I'd have to say that the general representation is still a little mild.

Like JR, I've been testing the OP's theory by flying the C172 in varying conditions - I'm actually quite impressed with how a lot of it reminded me of my flying days .  Not knowing whether anyone was going to make a video, I actually recorded one yesterday and would be happy to share it but it appears that this discussion has run on long enough.

Finally, I am all in favor for there being some kind of adjustment for this and would be happy to vote for it if there is something appropriately posted on the MS Forum?  I know that people are going to have varying comfort levels and experience and considering the other adjustments that are offered maybe this is something that could go in the Assistance area?

Edited May 23, 2022 by RandallR

[Simmer2308 22]

9 minutes ago, RandallR said:

I'll have to agree with JRBarrett - I do not find the majority of the videos to contain much turbulence.  In fact, I'd say that MS/Asobo is getting closer and closer to what I've experienced in the RW.  Another factor on the appearance is so many of the views are from outside of the aircraft instead of inside, so the bumps and air movement are magnified a little in comparison to the "feel" in the cockpit.

I did most of my training and PPL flying in the early 70's thru the early 80's - most of it in northern Illinois with occasional forays into Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, etc.  The occasional bumps and rocking you see in your videos is very reminiscent of those days.  The only days that were really smooth for the whole flight were winter days - as soon as it got warmer the air would move the aircraft in a very similar manner to what we're experiencing now - in fact, I'd have to say that the general representation is still a little mild.

Like JR, I've been testing the OP's theory by flying the C172 in varying conditions - I'm actually quite impressed with how a lot of it reminded me of my flying days .  Not knowing whether anyone was going to make a video, I actually recorded one yesterday and would be happy to share it but it appears that this discussion has run on long enough.

Finally, I am all in favor for there being some kind of adjustment for this and would be happy to vote for it if there is something appropriately posted on the MS Forum?  I know that people are going to have varying comfort levels and experience and considering the other adjustments that are offered maybe this is something that could go in the Assistance area?

Hey Randall, I wasn't going to post on this topic any further until I read your post. I appreciate your experience and also your opinion. You being in favor of "some kind of adjustment" seems quite reasonable and thoughtful in light of not only my current plight with SU9, but also several others re. turbulence.

The take home message here is for some sim pilots, all seems "well" and quite "normal" with the turbulence , and that is good, but for others like myself, it has been a chore.

This leads me to believe that something has changed, or might I say, "mucked up" either my installation or my yoke. Or, some other computer anomaly that is yet to be determined or narrowed down. It was all good for me prior to SU9. Might have nothing to do with msfs at all.

I love flying VFR, 2-3 thousand ft, overhead sun and "seeing" places that I could never visit in real life. I will be staying with this sim and continue to find either an answer or workaround. 

But, as it stands now, I can only fly either early in the morning or dusk and sundown, which limits my experience and immersion.

Thank You for posting....

[Fielder 3,645]

I really like the new turbulence. I would prefer it to be about half of what it is now. Mainly I just reset the time to 7 AM which cuts it down to about 1/4 what it is now at 1 PM. I'm not sure what o'clock would usually be half turbulence, maybe 8:30.

[Claudius_ 323]

In my opinion the problem is not to judge what the majority or the minority of this community wants, but how the devs are approaching to the "turbulence" aspect, and they are keeping a very good work, but it is not yet perfect. Adding an on/off turbulence slider because someone is simply believing it is "baked" is not right. Since FS20 was out Asobo showed a very interesting approach regarding the meteo, the dynamics of the air, and the flight model of his airplanes. It is not perfect yet, sometimes the airplanes move "nervously" on the ground and in the air, and someone believes that is a "baked" turbulence, like Active Sky in P3D (yes, it has the infamous slider!).

[RandallR 444]

3 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

In my opinion the problem is not to judge what the majority or the minority of this community wants, but how the devs are approaching to the "turbulence" aspect, and they are keeping a very good work, but it is not yet perfect.

From what I've seen, I believe most of the community would agree with this statement.  Yet there are those who find it difficult or unnatural to their experience - a device to set this to a lower setting, such as a new adjustment in the Piloting options might do the trick.

[RandallR 444]

This was my experience the other day when testing for turbulence with the C172. Overall, I was very pleased with the manner in which turbulence, buffet, wind shear and slope were represented.  Most of the flight only had moderate chop while the approach had me dealing with strong winds and some wind shear (14-24 Knots of wind - even 45 knots at one point) so the additional turbulence and the response of the aircraft still felt appropriate to me.  16 minutes of video was pulled from the 1 hour 50 minute flight - you can also quickly jump to segments using the Chapter List.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by RandallR

[Captain747 63]

One thing that crossed my mind last night...all of us who are affected by the excessive turbulence we are hellbend on saying that this is a "baked in"...and "hard coded"  effect that Asobo explicitly implemented in SU9...but here is the thing...is there not a list somewhere that shows and highlights exactly what is added and fixed in each update?...isnt that the "Release notes". ?...

Because I have gone through the latest release notes and nowhere I can see the implementation of turbulence...unless of course there are things that they implement but don't put them in the release notes...

I mean we keep saying that this is baked in...but do we have actual proof?...we only deduce that it is baked in because of the fact that there seems to be nothing at the moment that we can do to get rid of it.

 

I mean...what if...something else is at play here?...take for example the fact that some are affected and others not at all...

 

The other reason that we "think" that it is a baked in effect is because it all started after SU9...which according to our "logic"...makes us conclude that Asobo implemented it in SU9.

 

 

I guess the only one that can truly answer this million dollar question is Asobo themselves...I wonder when the next Q&A is...

 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,837]

55 minutes ago, Captain747 said:

One thing that crossed my mind last night...all of us who are affected by the excessive turbulence...

This continues to be very confusing, because none of the posted videos showed excessive turbulence, but you are still describing it as such. Very baffling how that can be described as excessive and something that could ruin VFR flight, really baffling.  If I had that tiny amount of turbulence on a flight, I'd almost be using the term 'on rails'

[pstrub 998]

14 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

This continues to be very confusing, because none of the posted videos showed excessive turbulence, but you are still describing it as such. Very baffling how that can be described as excessive and something that could ruin VFR flight, really baffling.  If I had that tiny amount of turbulence on a flight, I'd almost be using the term 'on rails'

Yep, exactly. I can understand that there are reasons to turn off turbulence, but various people who are more knowledgable than I am pointed out that it's no more than light turbulence, there's nothing excessive about it. I don't understand how the original poster can even come to this conclusion.

In 2020 the turbulence still felt very weird, I remember the tails of small aircraft basically following Lissajous curves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve) on the outside view, and feeling a bit nauseous after 20 minutes of flight. After a longer flight I once kept seeing a sinusoidal shaking motion when I closed my eyes 😂 Far from it nowadays...