Turbulence

[MrBitstFlyer 3,875]

3 minutes ago, Captain747 said:

 

That's exactly what I was afraid of...no toggle/slider...which means that they are not interested in the least in satisfying the wishes of those of us who are annoyed by the ridiculous "turbulence" that they have added.  in other words this proofs that they could care less if it has totally ruined the vfr experience for some of us... what Asobo essentially  is communicating is..."those of you who are not satisfied with what we have implemented...too bad...then don't use the simulator"...of course not in those exact words...but that is the vibe that I am getting from them.

 

And also on a side note...I can't help but notice how some members (without mentioning any names) here on this topic show a total disregard to what is really bothering some of us...by the nature of their comments I sense mockery and disrespectfulness which is totally uncalled for...I mean I know for a fact that this turbulence is in ALL simulators which means that it affects every one!...the only reason that most are "claiming" that they are seemingly not affected is simply because it does not bother them in the least to see an airplane bouncing around like crazy...hell, maybe they even enjoy it!...and that is why they are all saying that for them its not a problem...well if you all are ok with it...good for you...more power to you!...but that does not give you the right to mock and disrespect those of us who really are seriously affected by it...arent we supposed to support and encourage each other?...other wise what is the point of these forums...if someone comes here with something that clearly bothers them and asking for help and support...but all one gets in return is people that laugh at your problem and make fun of it...

 

I must say I am disappointed...I honestly expected much better.  Most people are really supportive and helpful here...but there are some very rotten apples amongst us.

 

And of course after this rant of mine I expect tons of negative reactions again...let them come...who wants to be first?...

I think more or less everybody agrees a turbulence slider would be useful. It is a simulator after all, so some flights you may want to practice in smooth air when live weather is poor where you want to fly.  I think I heard they thought a slider would be useful but not at this stage - two years into a ten year project not everything wanted will come soon enough..

The description of what you perceive as an issue do not fit the videos posted, so that's what has generated the comments.  You use terms above, like 'bouncing around like crazy', 'ridiculous turbulence', 'ruined the vfr experience', but the videos posted just don't show it!  Maybe you are using these terms because you are frustrated there isn't a slider, rather than the movement actually causing you problems? 

SU9 introduced more realistic airflow and turbulence but it isn't enough. sounds like SU10 will increase the realism, but they seemed to say if the wind is set to zero, the turbulence will be less - a sort of slider!

[Captain747 63]

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

SU9 introduced more realistic airflow and turbulence but it isn't enough. sounds like SU10 will increase the realism, but they seemed to say if the wind is set to zero, the turbulence will be less - a sort of slider!

 

I mean for the life of me I don't understand why on earth they don't want to implement a simple slider that gives the option from 0 turbulence to maximum?...I mean there are weather sliders right now for almost everything...its like they are reluctant somehow to do this...if wind is set to zero="less turbulence"...thats not enough...should be:

0=   no turbulence

1=   moderate

2=.  turbulence

3=.  high 

4=.  maximum 

5=   extreme

 

I am not a game programmer...but is this so difficult to implement Asobo?...why so reluctant to do this?...im mean this way everyone  is satisfied...plain and simple.

[Simmer2308 22]

40 minutes ago, Captain747 said:

 

That's exactly what I was afraid of...no toggle/slider...which means that they are not interested in the least in satisfying the wishes of those of us who are annoyed by the ridiculous "turbulence" that they have added.  in other words this proofs that they could care less if it has totally ruined the vfr experience for some of us... what Asobo essentially  is communicating is..."those of you who are not satisfied with what we have implemented...too bad...then don't use the simulator"...of course not in those exact words...but that is the vibe that I am getting from them.

 

And also on a side note...I can't help but notice how some members (without mentioning any names) here on this topic show a total disregard to what is really bothering some of us...by the nature of their comments I sense mockery and disrespectfulness which is totally uncalled for...I mean I know for a fact that this turbulence is in ALL simulators which means that it affects every one!...the only reason that most are "claiming" that they are seemingly not affected is simply because it does not bother them in the least to see an airplane bouncing around like crazy...hell, maybe they even enjoy it!...and that is why they are all saying that for them its not a problem...well if you all are ok with it...good for you...more power to you!...but that does not give you the right to mock and disrespect those of us who really are seriously affected by it...arent we supposed to support and encourage each other?...other wise what is the point of these forums...if someone comes here with something that clearly bothers them and asking for help and support...but all one gets in return is people that laugh at your problem and make fun of it...

 

I must say I am disappointed...I honestly expected much better.  Most people are really supportive and helpful here...but there are some very rotten apples amongst us.

 

And of course after this rant of mine I expect tons of negative reactions again...let them come...who wants to be first?...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep...I agree with all you said....A few people on this forum need to learn some manners or they were NEVER taught them. I just try my best to ignore people who are not openminded.  They add NOTHING to the discussion and want a VIDEO for everything. I hope all pilots who might "SEE" themself here reconsider the "submit reply" and reread their comment before sending it.

Remember why we are all here. To HELP one another. If you are having a bad day, as we ALL do, maybe posting a comment might not be a good idea. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Simmer2308

[Simmer2308 22]

22 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

 

SU9 introduced more realistic airflow and turbulence but it isn't enough. sounds like SU10 will increase the realism, but they seemed to say if the wind is set to zero, the turbulence will be less - a sort of slider!

I will gladly take any "sort of "slider"..to me, a step in the right direction. Baby step, but a step nonetheless.

[icewater5 181]

2 hours ago, Captain747 said:

 

..but is this so difficult to implement Asobo?...

Are there some differences because of server data (inc .exe files)

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by icewater5

[MrBitstFlyer 3,875]

20 minutes ago, Simmer2308 said:

They add NOTHING to the discussion and want a VIDEO for everything.

In this case a video was useful because most seemed not to have an issue with turbulence.

[Simmer2308 22]

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

In this case a video was useful because most seemed not to have an issue with turbulence.

What good was posting the videos? I saw the turbulence. You didn't. In one of my posts I stated that it could be SUBJECTIVE.  

[MrBitstFlyer 3,875]

2 minutes ago, Simmer2308 said:

What good was posting the videos? I saw the turbulence. You didn't. In one of my posts I stated that it could be SUBJECTIVE.  

Your statement is incorrect because I saw very mild turbulence.  What I didn't see was 'CRAZY turbulence', Turbulence that ruins VFR', 'RIDICULOUS turbulence', 'aircraft bouncing around like crazy' or 'turbulence so bad the wing may fall off'.  I think it would have been better to describe the 'problem' as slight turbulence when what you want sometimes is no turbulence.

[Simmer2308 22]

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Your statement is incorrect because I saw very mild turbulence.  What I didn't see was 'CRAZY turbulence', Turbulence that ruins VFR', 'RIDICULOUS turbulence', 'aircraft bouncing around like crazy' or 'turbulence so bad the wing may fall off'.  I think it would have been better to describe the 'problem' as slight turbulence when what you want sometimes is no turbulence.

I don't have SLIGHT turbulence on my setup...It is BAD....It needs fixing or at least tempering. I am not flying with the sim as much as I used to with SU8.

Reread my post where I stated it could be computer related. If you cannot find it I will gladly repost it.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,875]

7 minutes ago, Simmer2308 said:

I don't have SLIGHT turbulence on my setup...It is BAD

That's what the OP said, but it turned out to be very little.  If your turbulence looks like the OPs, I would think it may be something else causing your problem.  My experience is probably typical for most - there isn't BAD turbulence in MSFS (outside of transition glitches between layers).

[Simmer2308 22]

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

That's what the OP said, but it turned out to be very little.  If your turbulence looks like the OPs, I would think it may be something else causing your problem.  My experience is probably typical for most - there isn't BAD turbulence in MSFS (outside of transition glitches between layers).

Thats what I have been saying...Might not be MSFS at all. Could be me. What is confusing MrBits is that SU 8 was really good. SU9 for me has been tough. Thanks for posting....

[lwt1971 7,417]

Let's wait and see in the SU10 beta how the latest changes play out... Asobo seem to be saying that if winds are set to zero or very close to zero then there should be appreciably less turbulence than there is now in SU9 (Seb uses the term "much less" here https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1308771411?t=01h18m25s). This might be close enough to "zero" turbulence as some of you want (or even actually no turbulence), if winds are set to zero. The SU10 (and onwards) betas they also want to make longer, so hopefully there'll be enough time to gather all feedback and act on anything.

 

[jcomm 5,939]

Yes,

 

I'm beginning to think that Sebastian really meant "turbulence" when he referred to "thermals" at some point in his explanation of what is comming for SU10.

Instead he stated that people were complaining about there being "too many thermals with no wind", and that in order to get thermals one should set at least a 5 knot ( surface ? ) wind... Well, maybe he meant "turbulence".

Actually it is still wrong to make turbulence depend directly on the wind strenght. Some very local winds can actually steam from turbulence, for instance the one caused by the detachment of thermals from the surface. 

Developers are sometimes taken to implement stuff they really don't understand in it's most basic / practical forms... Reminds me of Austin announcing that in XP12 thermal updrafts will stop at the base of cumulus clouds 😕

Well, nonetheless, I still like what I feel in MFS since SU9 regarding the generation of some sort of rising air near zones with good albedo and surface exposed to the Sunlight 🙂 - Let's hope for a promising future for soaring weather in MFS !

[jcomm 5,939]

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

 

... Reminds me of Austin announcing that in XP12 thermal updrafts will stop at the base of cumulus clouds 😕

 

Correction - my bad ... Austin phases it out up the cloud...

[asanosho 55]

In any case, it will be interesting to see what SU10 brings.

However, if turbulence generated by rising warm air over surfaces of different albedo (thermals) would be no longer noticeable when the wind is reduced to zero, this would be a step in the wrong direction, away from a realistic simulation of the atmosphere.

I therefore hope (and am actually quite confident), that Seb's "much less" does not mean "zero".