Now... this IS bumpy....

[Dermot McClusky 524]

5 hours ago, mrueedi said:

MSFS is not simulating hand held cameras.

For this, you'd actually want to download MHHCS (Microsoft Hand Held Camera Simulator). Fantastic product, though there's a lot of debate among enthusiasts about the accuracy of of the physics. 

[sd_flyer 6,094]

4 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Yep absolutely.  From looking at the FOs movements and not the camera, continuous light turbulence at the worst.

Yes "hand shake" in turbulence add extra motion but I wouldn't expect too much yoke drama flying ILS LOL

[lwt1971 7,464]

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think the majority of these negative remarks are from people that have never actually flown in a light aircraft. 

And/or those who're too used to flying on rails in legacy sims.. having used FSX, P3D, XP for years I can attest to how on-rails those now feel compared to the much more alive atmosphere in MSFS, which is looking to get even better in SU11. Manual weather is always there for those who want to fly in their conditions of choice, but for live weather I want MS/Asobo to keep doing what they're doing and refining it, rather than removing stuff altogether (like they did with gusts pre-SU10) or artificially toning down stuff.
 

Edited October 31, 2022 by lwt1971

[109Sqn 1,593]

5 hours ago, Freq_flyer44 said:

But to actually do something differnet and 'get back on topic' ...

I think you've just created a new term with your typo, appropriate to this and many threads:

 

Differnet: n. A discussion on the internet where many different opinions are expressed.

😁

[ha5mvo 261]

4 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think the majority of these negative remarks are from people that have never actually flown in a light aircraft. 

on the contrary. I don't understand how anyone who ever flown can deem the erratic seesaw behavior + the grossly exaggerated yaw as "realistic".

probably the same ones who deemed the initial iteration of the fenix as spot on accurate.... or managed to put their foot in their mouth on numerous occasions...

Edited October 31, 2022 by ha5mvo

[109Sqn 1,593]

9 hours ago, Jetman67 said:

nice, i think that camera made it look a lot worse than it was though

 

8 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Yup. A handheld camera will always exaggerate the movement compared to a fixed one.

Certainly true, but whilst handholding the camera will increase the impression of turbulence, you can clearly see the pilots' heads move violently at times compared to their necks and bodies. That is not camera-shake. So it was definitely very bumpy at times if not actually the whole way through. Plus, I'd like to think that if flightdeck crew think it was bumpy, then it actually was!😉

[ha5mvo 261]

14 minutes ago, 109Sqn said:

 

Certainly true, but whilst handholding the camera will increase the impression of turbulence, you can clearly see the pilots' heads move violently at times compared to their necks and bodies. That is not camera-shake. So it was definitely very bumpy at times if not actually the whole way through. Plus, I'd like to think that if flightdeck crew think it was bumpy, then it actually was!😉

The entire discussion is rather futile without knowing the TRUE conditions (which the screen flicker won't allow).

Turbulent Bad Weather Landing - MD11 Cockpit View - YouTube

here you can get a comparison between a good simulator on the top tight corner and a bad simulator that's flying on rails in the main frame.

Edited October 31, 2022 by ha5mvo

[The Flight Level 2,121]

I think that was a very bouncy jump seat in combination with the hand held phone. Video was still bouncing around on the runway. I would have loved to see the wing view and the movement of the control surfaces to better gage the turbulence. Yoke barely moved inside. 

[F737MAX 5,738]

51 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Turbulent Bad Weather Landing - MD11 Cockpit View - YouTube

here you can get a comparison between a good simulator on the top tight corner and a bad simulator that's flying on rails in the main frame.

Interesting at how that video proves my earlier comment. The fixed camera gave barely any indication of turbulence, the handheld made it look like they were flying in a storm cell, whereas the reality was somewhere in between (see PF inputs on yoke + hear engines throttling up & down).

[Chock 17,769]

Most of the moving around on that video is the person translating minor shaking into something a lot more with a handheld camera. You can tell this is the case because it continues even after touchdown, and to be honest, a big airliner such as B747 has far too much inertia to be shaken one way then another at such a rate unless you were in some kind of mega-violent tropical storm. Having said that, you can certainly get turbuence where you will be shaken around a lot.

For what it's worth, I can tell anyone who has not flown in many light aircraft, that if you hit turbulent air in something with not much weight, it really can shake you about a lot. For example, when I am flying gliders and looking for lift, which is often quite turbulent, if I get into some good updraft and start circling in it, it quite often feels sort of similar to if someone was grabbing hold of the seat back of a typical office chair on wheels which you are sat in, and that person literally rocking the thing backwards and forwards with both hands, about as fast as they can do so. This is mostly because of the light weight of the aeroplane and the long wingspan, the leverage of which, tends to impart a lot of motion, but I can confirmn this really does shake around a lot.

Some stats on this sort of thing:

Each year in the US, approximately 58 people are injured by turbulence while not wearing their seat belts. From 1980 through June 2004, U.S. air carriers had 198 turbulence accidents, resulting in 266 serious injuries and three fatalities. Fatalities from this sort of thing are usually as a result of people being thrown up out of their seat, smashing their head on the overhead bins. In the infamous accidents where early variants of the DH Comet airliner broke up in mid air owing to fatigue tears starting from punched rather than drilled rivet holes in the pressurised fuselage rapidly expanding as they failed with the stress damage emanting from previous pressurisation cycles, it was found that the majority of passengers were in fact killed by having been thrown up out of their seats as the aeroplane rapidly depressurised and commenced a violent manuever, since at that point in the flight they had undone their seatbelts, causing them to hit their heads on the overhead structure, breaking their necks killing them pretty much instantly. Most of them also had broken lower legs from having hit these on seat in front as they were thrown up and out of their own seat.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Chock

[tweekz 2,165]

6 hours ago, MDFlier said:

I know. I keep reading these threads wondering what folks are talking about. I'm going on the assumption that when, where, and what I'm flying just doesn't make it happen. I'm pretty happy with the winds as currently depicted.

I think MSFS tends to tilt a little too much around the CG. Even in big planes, that should be much more stable around the axis.

[Bobsk8 12,879]

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

on the contrary. I don't understand how anyone who ever flown can deem the erratic seesaw behavior + the grossly exaggerated yaw as "realistic".

probably the same ones who deemed the initial iteration of the fenix as spot on accurate.... or managed to put their foot in their mouth on numerous occasions...

You either are a crumby pilot that can't handle any kind of turbulence, or you are just trying to stir the pot again as you usually do. 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

Was flying last weekend in a Sting S4, at 2500' over water nice day CAVOK and it was silky smoothy, climbing to 3500' in the same location we got intermittent teeth jarring turbulence that would have had us hitting our heads on the canopy if we unbuckled. At one point in a sustained turn the angle of bank went from 30 degrees to 60 degrees almost instantly. We had to lose some altitude fairly promptly to get out of it.

Similar turbulence in MSFS would generate a batch of complaints.

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[The Flight Level 2,121]

29 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Was flying last weekend in a Sting S4, at 2500' over water nice day CAVOK and it was silky smoothy, climbing to 3500' in the same location we got intermittent teeth jarring turbulence that would have had us hitting our heads on the canopy if we unbuckled. At one point in a sustained turn the angle of bank went from 30 degrees to 60 degrees almost instantly. We had to lose some altitude fairly promptly to get out of it.

Similar turbulence in MSFS would generate a batch of complaints.

 

Yes Glenn, Mother Nature throws in some nice surprises far from the norm and far from what you would ever expect. Providing the surprises are not too repetitious, the turbulence in this sim is just fine.

[ha5mvo 261]

54 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

You either are a crumby pilot that can't handle any kind of turbulence, or you are just trying to stir the pot again as you usually do. 

Admittedly, I'm no "senior fleet captain" , nor do I make 15 Mil....

I'm no zealot either who'd jump at the sight of any heretic trying to criticize their favorite toy. 

Pointing out the shortcomings of an addon or the platform isn't "stirring the pot", at least not in my book. Wouldn't hurt you listening and actually checking out some of that stuff from time to time. Who knows, perhaps even a "senior captain" could learn something new...