MSFS Turbulence Airliners

[jrw4 626]

One small human factors addendum to that video. It looks like the camera was attached to some kind of gimbal to steady the image. IRL, I have been in a C172 practicing ILS approaches under a hood during cold front passage. Turbulence was sufficiently strong that it was hard to focus my eyes on the instruments because my head was moving so much side to side. To say the least, it was highly disconcerting. Typical in-cockpit videos don't generally capture that  motion.

[The Flight Level 2,116]

@jrw4 Yes, great point! The image stabilization in cameras like the GoPros are phenomenal. Even when the camera is mounted on the wingtip, if you have image stabilization turned on it makes a very bouncy approach look rather smooth. I’m tempted to install another GoPro on the other wingtip and have one camera record with image stabilization off just for comparison! Perhaps in the future!

[robert young 2,897]

2 hours ago, Gstove said:

The ‘wagging’ in large jets should more be in pitch than yaw. 
 

 

I agree there is some way to go, but actually large jets are amazingly stable in pitch. There will be vibration in turbulence going through dense clouds together with updrafts/downdrafts which raise or drop the whole aircraft but due to the very large amount of longitudinal stability in airliners it is roll that effect them together with some yaw, though under autopilot they still do pretty well.

When you get down to corporate jet sizes, there is very much more yaw and some roll, but still not much pitch instability and nor is there really in even GA aircraft. I think people tend to underestimate just how stable nearly all aircraft are in pitch. The smaller the aircraft the more turbulence affects yaw and next roll but it is usually yaw that is more extreme.

Also keep in mind that a camera view (go-pro etc), particularly if it is zoomed in, will always tend to exaggerate movement due to lens foreshortening. The eyes are much better at adjusting to movement than a camera is.

When you see some big jet pilots sawing at the yoke on finals they are usually watching the glide slope and localiser and trying to correct for the slightest deviation. That doesn't mean they are fighting extreme turbulence (generally speaking).

 

[robert young 2,897]

9 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

Rob, the issue is that even with the new option of three different choices - which is a very good thing! - the most aggressive option still gives less turbulence than the previous “default” setting.

Whilst this likely won’t be a problem for those flying light aircraft, it may make some airliners feel less dynamic.

The obvious solution would be to have a fourth option on the slider that at least matched the previous level of turbulence for those who like their airliner flights to be lively.

But have you tried setting gusts to, say 10 knots above the core windspeed, setting their direction away from the main wind, increasing the gust frequency and flying in mid afternoon? I tried that and it is pretty extreme. I think it is a shame Asobo just gave 3 options and to that extent I agree with you. What would be handy are two separate sliders caibrated from zero to extreme, one affecting cloud turbulence/thermals and the other affecting hills, trees and mountains. Actually there could be a third slider for time of day.

After many years designing aircraft flight models, engines and sounds I know that customers respond well to being given as many options as possible. In our last RealAir release we gave the Lancair Legacy a very large set of user options. I'm not a big fan of sim developers imposing control over customers and that especially is the case with Asobo. It does take a bit more trouble to offer options but in the end you make a lot more friends and serve everyone's wishes.

Edited March 25, 2023 by robert young

[g-liner 388]

1 hour ago, robert young said:

I agree there is some way to go, but actually large jets are amazingly stable in pitch. There will be vibration in turbulence going through dense clouds together with updrafts/downdrafts which raise or drop the whole aircraft but due to the very large amount of longitudinal stability in airliners it is roll that effect them together with some yaw, though under autopilot they still do pretty well.

I suppose it depends which large jets you fly and what the exact cause of the turbulence is. For me the turbulence in the cruise is more about pitch and power changes usually linked to wind/temp changes and as the AFDS reacts to the speed changes. My experience is that the aircraft I fly often have pitch changes in turbulence higher up and less of the roll wagging in turbulence that fs2020 seems to depict in an unnatural way where the aircraft often seems (or seemed) to yaw randomly around a central point which to me feels very unrealistic. 

So I feel it’s not about intensity sliders but how the turbulence actually influences the aircraft itself. 

Obviously turbulence up in the cruise is different to turbulence near the ground though. 

The new “realistic” turbulence seems to have less of the ott sudden huge downdraughts that you see when gliding in the game sometimes also. 
 

like I said though it seems better with the new SU and it’s a 10 year plan so it will no doubt keep going on a general trajectory of improving. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Gstove
Spelling

[G550flyer 1,028]

As we all know, these type discussion will go on and on. We also get into the realm of "can't please everyone" and usually a compromise is selected. The big dream is to reach a point to which turbulence and other weather has to be considered in regard to safety of flight. For the most part, you are not fearing for your life in turbulence with most encounters unless you happen to be a passenger in back who doesn't understand turbulence. We also avoid a lot of bad turbulence based on ride reports and knowing where that turbulence may exist when encountering storms, frontal passages and mountains. Back in my military days, I do recall those summer days when you would encounter thermals on mid afternoons while beating up the RADAR pattern to knock out beans before the full stop. I flew heavies and light jets back in those days and it was a workout. The mighty KC-10 would experience those jolts and jostling as you flew around the RADAR pattern. There would be some yawing, but you would feel those sharp pitching and rolling moments. Right wing would pop up as you countered with roll input. The nose would sharply drop or pitch up here and there. You would also get those moments where the jet would would lift into you compressing your gut and at times drop away from you while you were brought down with it by the shoulder straps giving you butterflies. You would get a lot of yoke cardio if you were hand flying the whole time. I still remember the loud hissing from the AC system as the high press bleed valve would cycle from the throttle surging. If your speed was 5 knots fast or slow, the autothrottles would try to go to idle or to the GA limit causing the constant surging. People in the back awaiting their turn to knock out approaches would start feeling sick and nauseous, no windows in the back made it worst. I did notice that planes with bigger wings, like the C-141B I flew were worst.

In the C-141B, we would do 4 hour low levels with airdrops through out. Load masters and flight engineers would take Dramamine to keep from getting sick. Down in no hope Pope in NC, we would airdrop heavy loads and troops from the 82nd Airborne for training. They would have a puke fest back there and the plane smelled of vomit and jet exhaust as the jump masters mopped up the cargo floor. We would cruise around at 200 feet AGL at 230kts through those atrocious thermals and drafts. You would get sick looking down to do clock, map to ground work. The worst was coming up from the map and looking outside after being jolted. Good engineers would do all of the airdrop data before takeoff because you would instantly get sick trying to read performance charts. Here's a good turbulence story in my ole mighty KC-10.

Shortly after Sept 11, we were given a bunch of noble eagle flights before I had my first enduring freedom deployment. It was a late night departure from NJ down to DC where we would setup up an anchor and fly our combat mission. Never thought I would be doing that over the states. Weather was foretasted to be fair with a line of dying storms near DC. As you can imagine, we would be busy immediately after takeoff on this short flight because we had to setup the AR anchor, get set and prepare for a pair of F16s due as soon as we were in position. Out of NJ, it wasn't bad as we had continuous light chop as we climbed up to the low 20s. About 3 minutes at cruise, we were cleared to descend. This time, the RADAR was picking up returns of a line between us and the anchor point. As we descended, we were in the clouds getting bumped around a lot. Suddenly, we heard the loud metallic pelting as we entered heavy rain. We continued to our setup as we also worked the RADAR looking for the thinnest wall to punch through. We popped out into a clearing and saw a behemoth in front of us. I heard someone drop an F bomb as we dove in. We couldn't paint this one as it was being shadowed by the build ups in front of us. We were immediately rocked as we entered and the metallic pelting came back much louder than before. I couldn't read the engine instruments from all of the shaking and bouncing. I reached up and struggled to find the continuous ignition switch as we could hear those big cans surge from water ingestion. I concentrated on grabbing that switch and the engineer got it before I did. I had NEVER turned it on and it was the first time I had ever had some concern in the weather. ATC was being helpful by calling out heavy precip areas and we coordinated with the receivers to have them meet us on the other end of our track. That is probably the most weather related turbulence I have flown in. I've flown close to hurricanes, but never was beaten up that bad. These cells were not even that bad being late night.

One day, we will have weather in the sim that will cause you to respect it. I've been in windshear and had the GPWS callouts with the red WS indications. These are the type of conditions that keep you alert and make you make those gust corrections.     

[MäxliBäxli 41]

On 3/24/2023 at 2:29 PM, z06z33 said:

 Im an airline pilot, I can honestly say the worst turbulance(in an airliner) I've ever experienced is moderate and that was only for a few seconds. For example Landing in PIT the other day it was 20 gusting 40 with LLWS advisories and besides airspeed fluctuations from the gusts the ride wasn't anything beyond chop for us up front but when we got on the ground one of the FAs talked about a bumpy approach. My point was up front you don't feel the bumps as much as in the back. So unless you have experience in the cockpit of an airliner you have no frame of reference to judge realism upon. Besides who wants a crappy ride anyway... We try to avoid those even light chop.

Thanks for your input as a real pilot, great!

One question: as i only fly the A320 FBW, you recommend the "Realistic" setting because it is now better than before, right?

Greets,

Markus

[scotchegg 4,214]

On 3/25/2023 at 5:56 PM, jcomm said:

I honestly never know, in MFS or in XP, where the main fault lays... If in the weather model if in the flight dynamics....

With MSFS I seem to keep coming back to (lack of) inertia.

[lwt1971 7,441]

1 hour ago, scotchegg said:

With MSFS I seem to keep coming back to (lack of) inertia.

But that's the thing, I don't see a lack of inertia or related issues with *certain* aircraft.  Take the iniBuilds A310 for instance, it certainly conveys the heft and weight of an aircraft its size in the sim, and there's a real sense of inertia about it both in the air and on the ground. Goes for certain other aircraft too, while others yes do seem to lack inertia.  At the end of the day it probably all comes down to the particular flight model of each aircraft and how good of a job the dev (be it 3rd party or asobo) has done on it building on top of the core FDE of the sim (both in taking advantage of the core FDE features and also accounting for or working around any quirks there might be in the FDE).  iniBuilds certainly know their way around developing a good FM, and they've also said multiple times how they feel their MSFS version of the A310 certainly matches up to the flight dynamics of their previous iterations of the bird for other sims.
 

Edited March 28, 2023 by lwt1971

[Sonosusto 684]

This sure is a lot fun. So much fun.  In fact I only read a few posts and decided it was better to enjoy this hobby than bicker over small things. If you have a problem, bring it up to Asobo. It's a hobby and this simulator has flaws. Sometimes too many.

And if you're curious, I fly using the realistic setting and I have over 340,000 hours of experience.

If you get mad over my comments and don't understand the previous sentence, you need to get off the internet and do something else.

[Sonosusto 684]

That being said, I have flown (re-flown, is it?) the Just Flight Arrows and still have to turn the sensitivity down on TO and approach. They have improved in some way but certainly due for an update. The airliners have show significant improvement on approach/landing and especially over terrain. I am looking at you, Tivat and Kos! The Bae146 and PMDG 737 series are especially better but PMDG did a good job of trying to slow down the cray cray wind from SU10 and above. Even the DC-6 flies better than before.