13 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Every two years when I renew my CFI I have to go over some of crash scenarios analysis. Good portion of them accident related mountain crossing such as Rockys and different circumstances (all weather related) . And we not talking about light GA airplane like King Air get swallowed by the mountains easily.

 

Good training 😉 

Little bit of my story

   When I was younger got close to going solo was fortunate enough to have an uncle that flew and also flew a bit with a gentlemen that was a prior RAF pilot that owned a Bucker Jungman.  Went into the military and all that got derailed from some health related bs.  Wish life wouldn't have threw me a curve ball cause a lot of the things I experienced in the military would have transitioned into flying pretty well. Things such as discipline, crosschecks, and maintaining your bearing in stressful situations and "keeping your head" and fight against the situation the best you can and prevent the situation from dictating your movement etc etc.

 Then I closed my eyes one night and woke up the next day and realized I am getting old 😉

This Po Boy still loves things that fly though. And very Thankful to have crossed paths with good people that shared the gift of flight with me. And flight simming and the sim community kinda takes me back to the pilots lounge and the flying community a bit.

                                                                  Happy Landings,

                                                                          JW

 

Edited December 11, 20223 yr by jwhak

13 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

It's actually not hard to find an imposter . I mean person can be a knolwgable  but nothing can substitute stick and rudder experience.

........and of course, we're all such good flight simmers, we'd never have the wool pulled over our eyes.😉

Tongue in cheek that last bit.

The need to be seen as an expert drives all sorts of dubious behaviour, particularly in groups of men involved in a technical pastime such as on these flight sim forums.

The conditions flying in the mountains seem good to me but I still reckon the wind/gust effects near or on the ground need some work.

 

On 12/10/2022 at 10:56 AM, MarcG said:

One real life pilots bad physics opinion could be down to their hardware, controllers, setup etc and not the Sim itself.

Exactly that

Edited December 11, 20223 yr by ErichB

My biggest gripe with thermals in SU11 is the decay of vertical speed with height. I've seen multiple comments from users who have measured thermals in the sim at 40,000 ft. This is not realistic. In the real world, the only "thermals" that reach 40,000 ft are thunderstorms! I don't understand why the thermals in the sim are not modulated by atmospheric stability. If there is a strong temperature inversion near the ground, for example, no thermal turbulence will penetrate it. MSFS already ingests temperature data at a bunch of altitudes from the MeteoBlue NEMS model. It should be possible to modulate thermals and prevent them from rising above inversions, etc. 

Seb mentioned in the most recent Q&A that SU12 will include a more complete CFD simulation of thermals, so I'm hoping atmospheric stability will be factored in soon. It would make the experience more realistic, and more satisfying. Imagine taking off on a mid-summer morning in the sim, feeling the bumps from morning thermals starting to build, and then entering smooth air as you climb above an inversion. That would be fantastic! And it's perfectly possible in mountainous regions as well as flat areas. The air can be incredibly smooth above rugged terrain as long as you are above an inversion and there aren't strong mechanical or wave phenomena. 

It's worth noting that many types of dangerous mountain turbulence are not caused by ground-based thermals. Rotor clouds, clear air turbulence, and hydraulic jumps can form at high altitudes downwind of mountain ranges. Simulating those correctly would be pretty difficult! 

 

19 minutes ago, Marc Collins said:

 

It's worth noting that many types of dangerous mountain turbulence are not caused by ground-based thermals. Rotor clouds, clear air turbulence, and hydraulic jumps can form at high altitudes downwind of mountain ranges. Simulating those correctly would be pretty difficult! 

 

And also create a flurry of complaints that it is "unrealistic" .

The long term solution is likely to allow people to turn off realistic turbulence but NOT label the realistic setting as "realistic".  As soon as you label something "realistic" people perversely enable it and then complain about it.

Having flown hundreds of RW flights in 152s, 172s and lots of different gliders, the updrafts and downdrafts in msfs are very much overdone. Rarely have I encountered conditions in the RW that throw a light aircraft around as much as the sim now does (though I have encountered similar turbulence on a few occasions).

It does need to be toned down by about 50% to match what I have experienced in real life flying in the UK).

9 minutes ago, cianpars said:

It does need to be toned down by about 50% to match what I have experienced in real life flying in the UK).

Agree for areas like the UK (temperate and relatively flat).
Though this topic is specifically about mountain flying. A very different kettle of fish, which most of us Brits haven't experienced.

18 minutes ago, cianpars said:

Having flown hundreds of RW flights in 152s, 172s and lots of different gliders, the updrafts and downdrafts in msfs are very much overdone. Rarely have I encountered conditions in the RW that throw a light aircraft around as much as the sim now does (though I have encountered similar turbulence on a few occasions).

It does need to be toned down by about 50% to match what I have experienced in real life flying in the UK).

And other real life pilots says what we have now is realistic. So who do I trust?

I dont really care:p. Never been so happy with a flighsim as with MSFS. I let asobo do their magic and is perfectly happy with what we get, and they are still tweaking it, so we are still far from the end result...

Edited December 11, 20223 yr by Kaboki

1 minute ago, Kaboki said:

And other real life pilots says what we have now is realistic. So who do I trust?

All of them.
Atmospheric conditions vary massively by time of day, time of year, lattitude, geography, size of aircraft flown, performance characteristics of aircraft flown, pilot experience, etc.
Each of them bring their own knowledge and experience of what flying is like, according to them.

When I'm sim flying in and around, say KSEZ, on a hot summer afternoon, I expect it to be extremely turbulent. Pilots who fly there in real life tell us that is what happens. That chimes with the occassions that I've flown on warm summer afternoons and near hilly areas—it gets bumpy.

However, plenty of flight simmers (mostly Americans) jump in to say people are wrong when they speak of 'glass flat days'. These are conditions where the only bump that can be felt is if you perform a 360° turn and encounter your own wake turbulence.
It's not and I've experienced that during some flights in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. These pilots who say it's always turbulent when flying need to be aware that just because *they* have not encountered them, other flying conditions do exist elsewhere in the World.

I have a little under 10 hours of seat time,   logged 30+ years ago.   Always thought that lot of simmers would quit if feeling the forces was part of the sim experience.   Cooking under the canopy of a glider in the hot sun,  with cold air blasting in from a vent on the panel,  feeling every ripple,  it's not for everyone. 

I was soaring from Reno to Yosemite and had trouble over one particular ridge.   Couldn't figure out why the sink rate got so bad in that area. 

Then I happened to see this unrelated post over at SSC (SimSoaringClub).     Sure enough,  that particular ridge was covered in trees.   Started to realize that some of the turbulence I felt along the way was from trees.

Quote

Posted by ANRI at SSC

During yesterday's SSC_NZ_Southern_Alps_400 event, most of the pilots made a big mistake.
In this preset, a good northwest wind of 15 knots was set and allowed to run confidently along the windward slopes.
But, December 10 in New Zealand is the highest solstice. On this day, at 13:00 - 15:00, the ground thermal baths are working in full force. Fields, mountains, cities heated in the sun give a maximum lift of 500 - 1000 ft/min. Rivers and lakes, on the contrary, reduce to -300 ft/min.
And most importantly, forests are greatly reduced to -500 ft/min. The terms of all three types work together, their values are summed up.
Flying over the windward slopes of the mountains, which are covered with forest, you will get a very small elevator or not get it at all.
Before the start, I was gaining altitude over the city, near the airfield.
After the start, I did not fly with all the pilots through forests and lakes, losing a lot of altitude, and there were no good speakers over the forested hills. As a result, they greatly lost the pace of the task already at the first stage.
I flew to the side, avoiding the woods over the fields, at a good speed and with a slight climb. This allowed me to get to the nearest mountains quickly and at a good altitude, the ridge of which was not covered with forest and created an excellent elevator.
I advise everyone, in future tasks, avoid flying over forests and do not expect to find a good elevator over mountains covered with forests.