4 hours ago, A330B747 said:

ground physic = need an entire system update only for that (x-plane another level)

suspension physic = need an entire system update only for that (x-plane another level)

heavy turbulences = for mainstream users on the rails (but why then you call it REALISTIC in the game menu?) 

Ummm being a bit hyperbolic here I'd say especially with your last point (see my previous post), the on-rails feeling is only with the 'low' turbulence setting

Re: ground handling the 4 new flight model config parameters introduced in SU10 do go quite a way to improve handling compared to pre-SU10, as long as aircraft devs actually use them and tune the values appropriately for their aircraft. See this thread here on the official forum which has more details and also is attempting to collect a list of all aircraft that have implemented these new flight model features so far: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/ground-handling-list-of-aircraft-wheel-friction-values/578777

Also note this bit in the latest developer stream where they talk about ground handling improvements so far. The more expansive re-work is currently underway but there is no timeline given it's a big piece of work: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1772471519?t=00h54m21s

I agree with the suspension physics and hopefully Asobo will also improve that in the future.
 

 

Edited March 24, 20233 yr by lwt1971

Flight simulation is about choices. The choice to start a flight already on a runway, or in darkness, or in the middle of a hot day, or with/without clouds, or with/without turbulence, location, weather, season, temperature, aircraft type, and so on. The list of options is rightly almost endless.

So an update is released which gives even more user options than before and already some are complaining that the DEFAULT settings are counter to what they claim is "normal". So this becomes a pointless and circular argument.

The more options a sim gives you, the more flexible it becomes, which is EXACTLY what a simulator is - to give you chosen options about how your flight should be.

Anything that gives you more options is a good thing, whether or not you agree that "default" settings are accurate in your opinion. 

As someone who has flown many different types in half a century of flying powered and gliding aircraft I can count on one hand occasions when turbulence has been so wild as to be extreme, but far more often instability has been limited to over cliffs or trees close to take off or landing, and over hundreds of passenger airliner flights the same rule has applied. But if someone wants to set up a flight with extreme conditions from ground to 40,000 feet they can now do so with FOUR separate controls: Low, medium and high or so-called "realistic" but with the additional option of manually setting on top of it personalised gusts which can be as benign or extreme as you wish.

So what is not to like? Well, we can argue about core aerodynamics, taxi, ground control, crosswind behaviour but that is another subject. For now I am content that more CHOICES have been offered.

Over and out.

 

Edited March 24, 20233 yr by robert young

2 hours ago, Doering said:

Nice! First time to see turbulence subdivided with definitions like this!

Yep, that's how we call and report it. It also depends on the type of aircraft that reported it. If a piper reports severe, it's not the same as my beloved DC10. If reported by a 747, I would take heed. As others have mentioned, we are still some distance from where the turbulence should be. There's a reason why we avoid storms and stay out of the clouds. Every time someone checks in on freq, the first thing we ask for is a ride report. Especially if we are in continuous moderate chops. When you see clouds ahead, we flip on the seat belt sign and ask for a climb if possible. You make the announcement that it will get a little bumpy and to keeps belts fastened even if the sign is off. I have the advantage of a HUD and can use it to see if I will be above the clouds up ahead in advance. I also fly high where usually there is no weather. But still, you will get mountain wave, clear air, occasional tall cells and the old jet stream turbies if you are in it. If pilots are not asking for ride reports, ATC will ask to stay up on the game. I've had an FA sprain an ankle while going into KCOS. Always bumpy going in there with the mechanical turbies and up/down drafts. With the turbulence that you find in MSFS, your virtual pax will not get hurt lol. 

6 hours ago, 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.

This is something alot of people dont realize. I fly for a living too and the back of the airplane especially those long birds like an A321/739 is night and day compared to the front of the airplane 

3 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

I don't agree with that in the slightest. I have no idea why he would expect more turbulence in those approaches.

Right on, while he's an excellent contributor to the PMDG development team, he is very biased toward them, up to the point where everything is perfect with that product, or even will try to cover certain items.

That example where he wishes for more turbulence makes me also wonder why, that's a perfect example of what the airline industry calls a severe windshear situation, airspeed changes more than 15 KTS, VS changes greater than 500 FT/MIN,  more so, especially in this particular case a SINKRATE warning by GPWS below 1,000 FT.

For sure with all the criteria described above this was a mandatory go-around, which I do sincerely believe that he will do it in real life.

I'm confident to think that this is a demo (even though there is no mention of anything like that, or I didn't catch that statement).

Anyhow, subject to interpretations and perhaps another unintended heated discussion. 

3 hours ago, G550flyer said:

Yep, that's how we call and report it. It also depends on the type of aircraft that reported it. If a piper reports severe, it's not the same as my beloved DC10. If reported by a 747, I would take heed. As others have mentioned, we are still some distance from where the turbulence should be. There's a reason why we avoid storms and stay out of the clouds. Every time someone checks in on freq, the first thing we ask for is a ride report. Especially if we are in continuous moderate chops. When you see clouds ahead, we flip on the seat belt sign and ask for a climb if possible. You make the announcement that it will get a little bumpy and to keeps belts fastened even if the sign is off. I have the advantage of a HUD and can use it to see if I will be above the clouds up ahead in advance. I also fly high where usually there is no weather. But still, you will get mountain wave, clear air, occasional tall cells and the old jet stream turbies if you are in it. If pilots are not asking for ride reports, ATC will ask to stay up on the game. I've had an FA sprain an ankle while going into KCOS. Always bumpy going in there with the mechanical turbies and up/down drafts. With the turbulence that you find in MSFS, your virtual pax will not get hurt lol. 

This is exactly what i was telling with my previous post. If Asobo gives us the option REALISTIC means that the hard simmers like us need to treat the turbulence with respect and trying to avoid them ( or not trying to avoid them and train ourself to face a bad scenario with hard or extreme turbulence). Otherwise it's not simulation. it's something else.  

So again: if a 737 REAL PILOT about the REALISTIC setting says: " Indeed more realistic, but a tiny bit too tame" what does it mean? -> A product less for hard simmers and more mainstream especially on xbox side. 

so why you call it REALISTIC then? 

6 hours ago, A330B747 said:

so why you call it REALISTIC then? 

The update will never satisfy everyone in their perception of what is realistic. As I said in my earlier post, if you are not happy with the 3 main choices of Low, Medium or High, you can customise your own turbulence by using the GUST sliders in the weather/winds menu.

22 minutes ago, robert young said:

The update will never satisfy everyone in their perception of what is realistic. As I said in my earlier post, if you are not happy with the 3 main choices of Low, Medium or High, you can customise your own turbulence by using the GUST sliders in the weather/winds menu.

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.

1 hour ago, robert young said:

The update will never satisfy everyone in their perception of what is realistic. As I said in my earlier post, if you are not happy with the 3 main choices of Low, Medium or High, you can customise your own turbulence by using the GUST sliders in the weather/winds menu.

No, you can't. Do you never use live weather?

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

I just know that both sims do some stuff acceptably but, also do a lot of stuff very out of sync with RL and my experience there, even flying gliders in bombastic convective days where I've seen canopies broken my pilot's not correctly tied to their seats ...

Now, afaik MFS is still in development, so, I believe it's not closed to updates and fine tunning. I don't have it installed 🙂 right now, otherwise I would gladly try the latest update...

 

Edited March 25, 20233 yr by jcomm

23 hours ago, aerostar said:

With the voices of the smaller GA aircraft fliers managing to win the day and pressure Asobo/MS to cut down on the amount of turbulence experienced in the cockpit, I find that airliners turbulence effects and realism have been neutered.

25 years of flying airliners here, the last 10 on 737s, and I can say unequivocally that the SU10 turbulence changes created some asinine levels of turbulence in reference to conditions.  Randazzo of PMDG had a good commentary on this at the time, explaining the actual level of g that would be created in the 737 by those atmospheric conditions, and the work done on their 737 flight model to fix some of it.  Everything he said was completely obvious to anyone with experience flying airliners - the MSFS turbulence was routinely creating load factors that transport category aircraft aren't even certified for; in other words, severe turbulence (as in, the official definition of) on almost every flight.

For reference, in 25 years of flying airliners, I've written up severe turbulence encounters exactly twice.  😉

I haven't gotten to try SU12 yet and probably won't for another week so I can't speak to how turbulence is now.  But if it's reduced from what we were experiencing before, that's all to the good.  It would have been comical if they'd left the previous turbulence levels intact and called that the "realistic" setting, as it was nowhere near realistic on many flights.

14 hours ago, A330B747 said:

A product less for hard simmers and more mainstream especially on xbox side. 

Why do you imagine you’re a “hard simmer” and Xbox simmers aren’t? Or that the turbulence is being geared towards Xbox users on the controller? 
 

I’m an Xbox user and use the controller. Why do you think I wouldn’t want realistic turbulence or be able to operate any aircraft effectively in it with the controller? 

7 hours ago, robert young said:

The update will never satisfy everyone in their perception of what is realistic. As I said in my earlier post, if you are not happy with the 3 main choices of Low, Medium or High, you can customise your own turbulence by using the GUST sliders in the weather/winds menu.

For me it’s not just about the intensity of the turbulence, realistic seems an improvement on the previous ‘realistic’ the issue for me is how the different aircraft generally yaw too much in the turbulence. I’d expect aircraft to act more like they’re in wave activity and pitch and speed increase/decrease like surfing more than the fs2020 over the top yawing or just judder. The ‘wagging’ in large jets should more be in pitch than yaw. 
 

Either way my initial impressions are the new realistic is better than the old turbulence but there’s still a way to go. 

Guys - just thought this would be interesting to watch for how the turbulence effects this small GA. Direct crosswinds of 25-35 with turb:

Someone mentioned earlier (and I tend to agree) that turb IRL and how severe or not, has much to do with how it "feels" and to a lesser extent how it looks. In the sim all we have is the visual aspect, obviously...but in this video you can see how it looks in a small plane and also how it effects the pilot's body....you'd expect alot less visuals and physical motion in a large commercial aircraft, of course.

Piper Meridian - landing in extreme cross wind! - YouTube

 

The Meridian is a descent sized GA unit. Just looked up the max landing weight - about 5000 lbs. He looked to be by himself so guessing around 4000 lbs as a landing weight. The crab angle tells you how strong the winds were blowing - significant for sure. He nailed that as good as possible. No way a Vans RV9 (empty weight just over 1000 lbs) would be in the air and landing with those conditions!