6 hours ago, mrueedi said:

How could you know how real aircraft fly, if you think P3D is an aircraft simulator and not a railroad simulator? Sometimes I think users who have been accustomed to the FSX feeling of flying on rails are more vocal asking MSFS to be dumbed down than XBox users. Show me any real world cockpit video of a landing, in which the outside world is not jumping around. Just any. There is always movement. The MSFS video is very similar like e.g. the real world video below, but not like this one. The P3D one is behaving like on sleeping pills...

 

You must have missed the documents which are for pilots. Try reading this on page 273 (of 2102):

https://imsis-djpu.dephub.go.id/assets/aoc/file/e2e3128f5f0e5129402b3c33952618f9_B737-CL_SJA_FCOM_Rev. 13 Eff. DEC 15, 2021.pdf

 

That is not true. This real world example is very similar:

 

The video you just posted was NOTHING close to the OPs video post. Secondly, ive flown the NG in the real world. I think i have some idea what im talking about. 

30 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

The video you just posted was NOTHING close to the OPs video post. Secondly, ive flown the NG in the real world. I think i have some idea what im talking about. 

Not close but the video from the sim also had wind and gusts which were outside the 737s cross wind limits (20 knots wind, 40 knots gust). How do you know whether such winds in real world would be NOTHING close to the OPs video post? You would have to fly outside the 737 cross wind limits... 

I spent a few hours of testing and looking for places where winds were a factor.

 

I used this place Windy: Thunderstorms to see which airports report gusty winds to get an overall idea of wx conditions, reports are accurate and also reported as the same by the ASOBO wx interface.

I selected different airplanes observing x-wind recommended limitations to be more accurate in my assessment.

 

 

I used MSFS wx and REX WX FORCE.

 

In the end, I start to believe that actually, the problem that might be is in the way ASOBO is injecting the wx.

 

During t.o. and landing roll with ASOBOs, there is a noticeable harsh, overreaction to the wx conditions. The same applies to up/down thermal effects and mountain waves.

 

Exactly the same conditions, time, location, and airplane with REX WX FORCE I find it to be realistic.

 

Also, if we start adjusting ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed, ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed, ground_high_speed_steeringwheel_static_friction_scalar, 

ground_high_speed_otherwheel_static_friction_scalar we can achive quite very positive results.

 

To be noted, I'm not affiliated in any shape or form with REX WX FORCE, it is my observation after spending a few good hours of testing. 

I haven't had a chance to fly in SU10 yet, so I can't offer any opinion on the gusts in live weather. I will say that the sim video (from 737NG Driver on YouTube) and the real-world video aren't directly comparable. From what I saw in the sim video, Emmanuel set up custom weather with a strong crosswind and intense gusts. The real-world video probably doesn't depict such extreme conditions, so I would not expect it to look as dramatic. 

That said, it's certainly possible that the crosswind effect on yaw is exaggerated in the PMDG 737. I'd be interested to see real data on that, rather than personal impressions which can be anecdotal and based on personal experiences under varying conditions that might not be comparable. 

I agree with @ryanbatc about thermal turbulence and lack of smooth air in MSFS. Overall, I think thermal turbulence is too widespread in the sim, especially at higher altitudes. I suppose it's a good first step, but I am puzzled by why turbulence is not modulated by atmospheric stability. Asobo is receiving weather model data from MeteoBlue with temperature data at all altitudes. They could easily calculate atmospheric stability parameters (thermal lapse rate, Richardson number, etc) and modulate turbulence based on those values. I'm discouraged to see more heavy-handed, simplistic approaches like this statement from the SU10 release notes: "turbulence and drafts have also been reduced by 50% at high altitudes." Why reduce them by 50% everywhere? If the atmosphere is stable, reduce thermals. If it's unstable, keep them, regardless of the altitude.

For surface-based thermal turbulence, another option would be to disable thermals above the forecast-derived planetary boundary layer (PBL) height. Almost all forecast model data contains a PBL height parameter. I would think it could be easily imported into the sim from MeteoBlue. 

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Ir's so sad that non pilots are trying to get Asobo make MSFS like a train simulator instead of a flight simulator. 

Bob, the idea that calm conditions equals flying on rails has been debunked so many times and I'm surprised you have fallen into that mythical trap. If you recall the early post release days of MSFS, most light aircraft had quite ridiculous bobbing, weaving, and low inertia to the point of absurdity and after many contributors battling things out, I think the consensus has moved. Imposing artificial "movement" reliant on low inertia over-reaction to gusts, crosswinds etc has been sensibly toned down. Asobo's misplaced claims that "flying on rails" is something to address by gross exaggeration of the opposite is clearly something they themselves have silently but most definitely moved away from.

You can even see that in SU10 where a substantial amount of twitchy behaviour, particularly in pitch, has been ironed out.

The fact is that what some describe as "flying on rails" is what happens to ALL aircraft, heavy or light, when conditions are benign. I have flown gliders on a mild morning and evening where to all intents and purposes I might as well have been piloting a 747 in a 5 knot wind in clear skies.

That doesn't mean the glider was "flying on rails". It was just unaffected by anything much more than control inputs. Aircraft do not buck and weave unless some force is acting upon them. They don't shift around violently in light winds with few gusts and little updraft. But it seems many think that equals flying on rails. It doesn't.

Now, the problem occurs when there ARE strong winds, turbulence and up/down drafts. Most aircraft do not twitch randomly this way and that. They still have inertia. Even in extreme gusts the forces are mainly lateral (roll and yaw) and very rarely in pitch and that's because almost all aircraft are remarkably stable in pitch. In yaw, the instability takes time even in light aircraft because of the stability of the tail and a relatively long fuselage. It's fine to have turbulence and gusts, but as nearly everything else is an option in simulators, so should they be. Now EVERYONE can choose what scenario they can set up. That is the whole purpose of a simulator - so you can practise and experience USER-CHOSEN scenarios. The alternative is that everything is imposed and nobody wants that.

It's quite simple: just offer the OPTION of turbulence, gusts, updrafts, thermals, clouds, weather systems etc, etc, JUST AS you give options about where you want to fly from and to, how fast you wish to go, what altitude you choose and how much fuel and PAX you want on board. I just cannot see how the subject of gusts, turbulence, winds, thermals, etc should be any different from the hundreds of other options available.

 

3 minutes ago, robert young said:

Bob, the idea that calm conditions equals flying on rails has been debunked so many times and I'm surprised you have fallen into that mythical trap.

 

I think Bob flew sufficient amount hours in real life to actually know the difference between myth and reality

16 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

How do you know whether such winds in real world would be NOTHING close to the OPs video post?

If you watch the OP's PMDG 737 video, the wind speed indicator on the ND is jumping around like crazy. Between 4'17" and 4'24" watch how the wind speed changes many multiple times per second in the 36 kts - 54 kts speed range.
That's not how it appears in the real world 737 video linked earlier, nor in this one. The wind speed changes, but nowhere near the same frequency.

Questions to pose are: Does MSFS perform too many wind speed changes per second? Does the wind speed indicator in the PMDG 737 display wind data very differently from the real world 737?
 

22 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

But this is more a question of each aircraft's flight model and not necessarily the core flight sim's simulation of gusts/turbulence etc right.  Asobo might not have modelled the default aircrafts' FMs enough to depict intertia properly, but that is a separate topic from what's being discussed here. Are you guys noticing this extreme effect on yaw in any high fidelity 3rd party aircraft?

Other than the Fenix and FBW Airbuses, I also fly the FSReborn Sting S4 and the IndiaFoxtEcho MB-339. Both of these can suffer from hideous yaw snapping as they have much less mass than the airliners.
It could be bad flight models, could be the default turbulence effect in MSFS or could be elements of both.
Rob Young's findings of a universal turbulence effect that makes an appearance after 8am and the PMDG wind speed display in the video seem to suggest that Asobo has some work to do on their side w.r.t to the turbulence effect.

I just made another flight in MSFS. Smooth air not turbulence no gusts. Did we spend some time flying  post SU10 update  to observe different weather injections in different places and circumstance?  

I've made quite a few flights in my C42 where it was so calm we were literally "flying on rails".

My last flight between Dunkeswell and Popham along the Dorset coast was spectacular and, after trimming the aircraft I hardly needed to touch the controls until we got to Portland Bill!

 

52 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I think Bob flew sufficient amount hours in real life to actually know the difference between myth and reality

Then be should know that even the smallest of aircraft can experience totally smooth air - at any altitude.  The way his posts read to me also make me think he believes airplanes are always in constant turbulence.

23 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Then be should know that even the smallest of aircraft can experience totally smooth air - at any altitude.  

Unfortunately, there are people that don't believe it and for sure will argue no matter what is the reality.

 

I've been saying for such a long time that yes, there are many times, for hours and hours where we fly like on rails. Not every hour, day, is a bumpy ride.

 

Thank you @TrafficPilot for the clip. 

 

This is the problem we have it, will never get fixed properly as soon as people without real knowledge keep on insisting that turbulence is constant and want more, to the point where is completely unrealistic and have an arcade simulation.

In responding to the OP, yes the wind gusts should remain the same and definitely not too hard to fly in as being claimed by others in the simming community. A significant difference between the sim and RL flying is your gut input on the stick or yoke to corrections in windy/gusty conditions. In turbulent conditions the stick is never still and moving back and forth extensively and abruptly (as also seen in the airliner videos). In the sim the aircraft kinda bounces back in a regular and repeatable motion after a gust with little or no aileron/rudder input.

NOTE: I fly about once a week and a little less in the winter (because the bottom of hangar door is often frozen in ice and snow!). There is no absolute correlation between what the sky is showing and the amount of turbulence you experience when flying. While you can predict what the sky and clouds will dictate, you will get it right most times, but never all the time. Last Friday the sky was totally clear and the air was cool. I had planned a flight over Toronto and maybe even land at Billy Bishop. I could see the Toronto skyline when airborne (50 nm line of sight) with clarity. Absolutely incredible visibility! After about 15 minutes I turned back to the airport. The flight was absolutely miserable with up/down and side to side turbulence. Back at the clubhouse, the flight instructors all stated the trouble with maintaining a set altitude because of the turbulence. I would not have believed the experience given the absolute clear sky had I not flown that day.

1 hour ago, ryanbatc said:

Then be should know that even the smallest of aircraft can experience totally smooth air - at any altitude.  The way his posts read to me also make me think he believes airplanes are always in constant turbulence.

You must be talking about another Bob but me, because I never said that. I have flown in perfectly smooth air in a C 152, in the morning and late afternoon, and on the other hand, the same aircraft was like a roller coaster ride in the middle of the day. That is what flying is about, you don't know what it is going to be like until the wheels leave the ground, and there is no slider in any aircraft I have ever flown where you can adjust the turbulence. 

2 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

You must be talking about another Bob but me, because I never said that. I have flown in perfectly smooth air in a C 152, in the morning and late afternoon, and on the other hand, the same aircraft was like a roller coaster ride in the middle of the day. That is what flying is about, you don't know what it is going to be like until the wheels leave the ground, and there is no slider in any aircraft I have ever flown where you can adjust the turbulence. 

I didn't say you said that but it seems like in your opinion (from reading your posts), people who mention any sim that flies on rails, is an unrealistic sim.

Thank you for letting me know your actual stance on turbulence.

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I think Bob flew sufficient amount hours in real life to actually know the difference between myth and reality

Give Rob some credit too. He’s a legend in flight modeling, responsible for some, if not the most, realistic models ever created for simulation as well as a pilot himself.