Turbulence

[The Moose 1,177]

So, here we are...  11 pages of waffle.  No evidence whatsoever of "excessive turbulence" and no evidence that the turbulence is "baked in"

From my perspective the turbulence is very well implemented, feels natural, occurs in conditions that it should and in no way feels like a baked in effect.  It's actually rather impressive work so far.

I have no clue what anyone claiming "excessive" turbulence is talking about, and since the people claiming it cant produce any evidence of it after 11 pages, it appears this claim is absolutely false.

It would seem to be "case closed until evidence is provided"

[robert young 2,897]

The strong reason for having a slider or other option is this:

Just say you set up a flight without live-weather. In those conditions you can set the cloud layers and density, the wind and gusts, the amount of sea swell (through wind speed), the haze and temperature conditions, the time of day, pressure, location, type of aircraft, routing, runway choice, altitude and cruising speed. All of these variables are what makes a SIMULATOR. A simulator simulates user constructed conditions in order to train, practice or experience those conditions. It is not "real-world" in this regard. If you want "real-world" conditions you can opt to fly by the book and pretend you are on a scheduled flight and you can set live weather. But the whole point of a simulator is that you can OVER_RIDE all of this.

To me it seems blindingly obvious that the amount of turbulence is just another one of these user options just like all of the other ones. As you can already set live-weather if you wish, or set weather conditions as you wish, it seems to me to be ridiculous to not include turbulence as an option. Having an option serves EVERYONE. 

If you are not going to provide this as an option then you might as well also imposed cloud levels and densities, and some pilots will say "that's fine with me because where I live there is nearly always some cloud". But that's not the point. The whole point is that in a simulator YOU can set the amount of cloud you wish to fly with. Turbulence should be no different from all the other flight set up options. I cannot see how anyone could possibly object to it, whether or not you happen to personally think it feels "normal" to you.

Edited May 24, 2022 by robert young

[flying_carpet 657]

1 hour ago, robert young said:

All of these variables are what makes a SIMULATOR.

THIS should be pinned.

[mrueedi 702]

1 hour ago, robert young said:

To me it seems blindingly obvious that the amount of turbulence is just another one of these user options just like all of the other ones.

No, turbulence is a result of the input parameter you mention. It should not be input itself.

People would be kidding themselves by creating totally unrealistic environments. As, again, if user defines time, termperature, wind, gust in a way that turbulence would occur in real world, why should a sim that strives to replicate the real world allow to change that outcome? Thats like I could set time to midnight, but a slider allows me to activate daylight.

[asanosho 55]

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

. . ., if user defines time, termperature, wind, gust in a way that turbulence would occur in real world, why should a sim that strives to replicate the real world allow to change that outcome?

Exactly!

If you don't like the turbulence that follows from your input parameters, modify your parameters.

The possibility to dampen the resulting turbulence without changing the weather parameters contradicts the claim of MSFS to be a simulator.

[Cpt_Piett 4,641]

I guess introducing a slider, or an on/off option could make sense when you compare it to other variables that can be changed. Like the flight model and using various assistance options like rudder assist etc. 

Not sure how it would be easily implemented though as it depends on other meteorological and topographic factors.

[lwt1971 7,397]

6 hours ago, robert young said:

The strong reason for having a slider or other option is this ... To me it seems blindingly obvious that the amount of turbulence is just another one of these user options just like all of the other ones. As you can already set live-weather if you wish, or set weather conditions as you wish, it seems to me to be ridiculous to not include turbulence as an option. Having an option serves EVERYONE.

FWIW, in the last dev Q&A as part of the seasons topic Seb addressed the turbulance topic at length starting here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1468514324?t=00h43m10s

And he mentioned they'll look into adding a toggle (so maybe not a slider) to turn on/off this weather/atmosphere induced turbulance effect: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1468514324?t=00h43m10s

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by lwt1971

[robert young 2,897]

5 hours ago, asanosho said:

Exactly!

If you don't like the turbulence that follows from your input parameters, modify your parameters.

The possibility to dampen the resulting turbulence without changing the weather parameters contradicts the claim of MSFS to be a simulator.

But you've missed something. The current turbulence effects over-ride any other parameters you set. There are NO Input parameters that allow you to escape from the COMPULSORY turbulence. However you set every other option of weather you cannot over-ride the turbulence. You can set your flight to be at high pressure, low temperature, no clouds, no wind, no convection, but you will STILL get turbulence. If you can set every single other scenario why can you not set turbulence levels? Turbulence is not a steady state or a permanent feature. It occurs when other conditions will provoke it. If you remove those provoking conditions then turbulence should be zero, but it is far worse than that. Whatever conditions you set there is always turbulence.

Answering those who say the lack of turbulence is unrealistic, it is also unrealistic to set the vast majority of other user-option parameters for a given flight in MSFS. If you can set the density of clouds for a given simulated flight, or elect to have no clouds/wind at all, then why should you not also not have the opportunity to set turbulence to zero. Why is this such a problem? I go back to my comparison with FSX which had the utterly ludicrous compulsory lights on at dusk and lights out at dawn. This imposed "feature" was stupendously stupid as we all now accept.

But it took a while for people to say "hang on", why is this compulsory lights off/on regime imposed? I think the same is happening right now.

Edited May 24, 2022 by robert young

[flying_carpet 657]

7 hours ago, asanosho said:

If you don't like the turbulence that follows from your input parameters, modify your parameters.

The possibility to dampen the resulting turbulence without changing the weather parameters contradicts the claim of MSFS to be a simulator.

What about clean air turbulences? How shall the weather engine create them (which algorithm to apply)? Clean air is clean air. If Asobo decides to create them randomly, the X-Box users will complain "What the h...? This game is unplayable." If Asobe doesn't use any turbulence at all, the simmers will complain "What the h...? This sim is not depticting reality." Same for other occurences of turbulences. So, what to do?

X-Plane has a slider for turbulences, thus MSFS should avoid to do it exactly in the same way (attention flamewar danger 😁). Ok, seriously - you have 3 possibilites for the weather:
1. Real weather
2. Select a preset (CAVOK, VFR, Marginal VFR, Non-Precision Approach, IFR Cat I, IFR Cat II, IFR Cat III and Stormy)
3. Manually configured.

I didn't do extensive tests due to lack of time, but if you select the preset "Stormy" you get turbulences in the clouds, without being able to influence them (like "not modifying the parameters").

If you select "manually configured" you can add cloud and wind layers independantly from each other. So, you can set wind layers with airspeed, turbulence, gust speed increase and wind shear angle. You can set this wind layer in exactly the same altitude as clouds, and you can adapt the turbulences yourself - weaker or stronger. If you don't want any clouds, the wind layer can serve as simulating clean air turbulences.

It's like the instructor in a level D simulator sets a fire on the right engine, so the pilots get stressed. But not enough, suddenly clean air turbulence occurs set by the instructor (however, he doesn't have to wait until the weather eingine creates them - and that's exactly why there should be a possibility to set turbulences "manually"). Additonally, bird strike on both engines ... Fairly unlikely, right? But ... expect the unexpected. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition ... erm ... bird strikes on both engines (at least not before Capt. Sully had to experience it). By training such unexpected events (set "manually") you are much better P3D* for reality.

*prepared, SCNR

 

[robert young 2,897]

Here is an example I found today. It didn't take much searching to find it. Missionary Bush pilot on a 26 minute video of a longer flight with 27 degrees C over extremely mountainous conditions and medium wind. Except for the last 500 feet final approach and a very brief crossing barely a couple of hundred feet above a high peak, there was almost no discernable turbulence and nowhere near that "simulated" by MSFS in similar conditions.

On another day there might well be much more turbulence but on this particular day very little, in conditions that MSFS would be bound to impose a non-optional bumpy ride. There are many more examples where you might expect turbulence but get very little. This is why it should be an option unless you load up a flight with live weather and the conditions can be relied upon to be truly real. I rest my case!

[Simmer2308 22]

10 minutes ago, robert young said:

 There are many more examples where you might expect turbulence but get very little. This is why it should be an option unless you load up a flight with live weather and the conditions can be relied upon to be truly real. I rest my case!

Exactly. If you load up a flight with "live weather" or manually set your wind, temperature, direction etc. then you might/probably expect to get turbulence.

OTOH, if you manually set everything for no wind at any level, clear skies, it should be up to the INDIVIDUAL sim pilot if he wants turbulence at all.

Someone will pick apart this response and beg to differ.

I beg to differ as well. Just take a look at how MANY parameters that you can adjust in the sim. Can a REAL WORLD PILOT control all those parameters? Of course not. Its real world. This is a sim where can dial in your own, PERSONAL experience.

How about that slider?

[lwt1971 7,397]

9 minutes ago, Simmer2308 said:

How about that slider?

Here is the point in Asobo's last dev Q&A where Seb says they'll look into adding a toggle to turn the turbulence effect on/off: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1468514324?t=00h44m10s

As part of their extended answer to question on status of full seasons support: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1468514324?t=00h41m13s

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by lwt1971

[Simmer2308 22]

27 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Here is the point in Asobo's last dev Q&A where Seb says they'll look into adding a toggle to turn the turbulence effect on/off: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1468514324?t=00h44m10s

As part of their extended answer to question on status of full seasons support: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1468514324?t=00h41m13s

 

Thank you for the response. Appreciated...Happy Flying CAVU

[Cpt_Piett 4,641]

4 hours ago, robert young said:

The current turbulence effects over-ride any other parameters you set.

With all due respect, but I'm sorry, it does not. You keep claiming this, but I have shown (perhaps I'll make a video) that in certain conditions it is possible to have next to no turbulence. I'm all for a slider / toggle, it does not bother me, and I guess it would make a lot of people sigh with relief. But I just cannot buy into this "baked-in", "always-there", "over-ride" stuff. 

[Captain747 63]

13 hours ago, robert young said:

The strong reason for having a slider or other option is this:

Just say you set up a flight without live-weather. In those conditions you can set the cloud layers and density, the wind and gusts, the amount of sea swell (through wind speed), the haze and temperature conditions, the time of day, pressure, location, type of aircraft, routing, runway choice, altitude and cruising speed. All of these variables are what makes a SIMULATOR. A simulator simulates user constructed conditions in order to train, practice or experience those conditions. It is not "real-world" in this regard. If you want "real-world" conditions you can opt to fly by the book and pretend you are on a scheduled flight and you can set live weather. But the whole point of a simulator is that you can OVER_RIDE all of this.

To me it seems blindingly obvious that the amount of turbulence is just another one of these user options just like all of the other ones. As you can already set live-weather if you wish, or set weather conditions as you wish, it seems to me to be ridiculous to not include turbulence as an option. Having an option serves EVERYONE. 

If you are not going to provide this as an option then you might as well also imposed cloud levels and densities, and some pilots will say "that's fine with me because where I live there is nearly always some cloud". But that's not the point. The whole point is that in a simulator YOU can set the amount of cloud you wish to fly with. Turbulence should be no different from all the other flight set up options. I cannot see how anyone could possibly object to it, whether or not you happen to personally think it feels "normal" to you.

 

Nailed it!...

Next:

Mission impossible:

Convince Asobo....

 

I mean, yes I saw the twitch video where Sebastian said that "they probably should" implement an on/off switch...real question is...are they really going to go through with it?...

 

On the other hand...one thing that I am noticing much to my surprise...is that this issue is getting its long due attention after all...something that I did not expect to be honest...since it appears that the majority of people "claim" not be bothered by the turbulence...I thought that this topic had come to its end...but it seems that some people are coming out of the woodwork...and to me that is a good sign!...the more this is stressed the bigger the chance that Asobo might consider implementing a solution.

 

 

 

 

Thanks guys for the support!

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Captain747