Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Options are Low, medium and realistic.  Just wondering if this will impact on the amount of lift and sink for gliders. Anyone tried gliding at different settings?

Ryzen 5800X3D, Nvidia 3080 - 32 Gig DDR4 RAM, 1TB & 2 TB NVME drives - Windows 11 64 bit MSFS 2020 Premium Deluxe Edition Resolution 2560 x 1440 (32 inch curved monitor)

Posted

I leave it at realistic and found the "insane" approach turbulence to be reduced quite a bit. Overall, the turbulence has been reduced.

I tried low and medium and it felt like other simulators. On rails, as it were.

  • Like 5

7800x3d+4090

JF Bae146+Arrows+F28, BS Dukes+Bonanza+KingAir, FSR500, Cows Da42, FX Hjet+Vision, FSW 414+Lear, FSS 175+P2006T, Fenix 320, PMDG DC6+7379+777, C22J, Milvis 310+Porter, SWS Kodiak+PC12+Zenith+RV14, BR Goose, IFE MB3339+F35.

 

Posted
14 minutes ago, V1ROTA7E said:

Is this a setting under the in-game weather tab, or under assistance?

assistance

  • Like 1

I9- 14900KS- CPU @ 5.0GHz, 64 GB RAM @ 6200MHz, NVIDIA RTX 4090

Posted
4 hours ago, Sonosusto said:

I leave it at realistic and found the "insane" approach turbulence to be reduced quite a bit. Overall, the turbulence has been reduced.

I tried low and medium and it felt like other simulators. On rails, as it were.

depends on what aircraft you fly too, light ones on medium certainly not on rails.

maybe tell us the aircraft you fly?

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

My take on it is that other than the tweaks to convection under clouds, the convection model remains the same, they have just adjusted the turbulence model for how aircraft react to these air currents.

Obviously, 'realistic' is their take on what realistic turbulence should feel like.  Medium and low are for people who find the turbulence model a bit unsettling or difficult to deal with. 
I find medium is a bit like FSX, which was alright for me then, and low is barely anything for people who want to fly that way - all good in my book.

I prefer realistic now they have toned it down a bit.  Before, I was getting flipped all over the place in GA in fairly calm weather.

It is subjective, but I think it isn't far off now on realistic.  Some will always say its too weak or too strong for them, but they will never please everybody and sometimes they just have to go somewhere in the middle. 
I really don't think is is worth arguing about for where it is now, but of course, some will.  :unsure:

Edited by bobcat999
  • Like 2

Rob (but call me Bob or Rob, I don't mind).

I like to trick airline passengers into thinking I have my own swimming pool in my back yard by painting a large blue rectangle on my patio.

Intel 14900K in a Z790 motherboard with water cooling, RTX 4080, 32 GB 6000 CL30 DDR5 RAM, W11 and MSFS on Samsung 980 Pro NVME SSD's.  Core Isolation Off, Game Mode Off.

Posted

I tested realistic and it definitely reduced the useless turbulence where it shouldn't be any. However, on the other hand, now there is no turbulence where it should be.

It's the classic Asobo approach: overreacting. 

  • Like 3
Posted
20 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I prefer realistic now they have toned it down a bit.  Before, I was getting flipped all over the place in GA in fairly calm weather.

I think overall you're seeing what I'm seeing. The effect on GA planes has been toned down somewhat. They may still need to dial it back another small step but it's headed in the right direction. And actually "Medium" isn't that far down from "Realistic" once you fly with it for a while.

  • Like 3

ASUS MAXIMUS IX CODE Z270, i7-7700K [email protected], EVGA GTX 1080 Ti, 16GB DDR4 RAM, VKBSim Gladiator joystick, CH Pro pedals, Razer Orbweaver Chroma Gaming Keypad, Tobii Eye Tracker, Samsung SSD 850 Pro 512GB (main drive/sim drive), WD Black 1TB HDD

Posted

Whilst I've not yet tried gliding with the new settings, I would say that somewhere between medium and realistic would feel very much like what I've experienced in the real world flying 152s and 172s.

I don't know how difficult it would have been to give us a slider rather than three discrete settings.

  • Like 3

Ryzen 5800X3D, Nvidia 3080 - 32 Gig DDR4 RAM, 1TB & 2 TB NVME drives - Windows 11 64 bit MSFS 2020 Premium Deluxe Edition Resolution 2560 x 1440 (32 inch curved monitor)

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, cianpars said:

Whilst I've not yet tried gliding with the new settings, I would say that somewhere between medium and realistic would feel very much like what I've experienced in the real world flying 152s and 172s.

I don't know how difficult it would have been to give us a slider rather than three discrete settings.

Forget gliding, other than a bit of ridge. Convection / thermals are totally unrealistic in their form / development / cycle / physics... Don't think you can thermal in MFS like you do in RL - sometimes the only solution is to fly in a straight line 😕 as if you were flying in convergence or bellow cloud streets, or in some forms of wave 😕

Looking at the SU12 notes on what has changed is even more disconcerting because it reveals they really don't have the understanding of how thermals work, and have amalgamated a series of concepts they heard or read about into their "model of thermals and convection".

Regarding turbulence, again, I don't know if the weather engine or the flight dynamics are to be blamed, or both? Sometimes I think most of it comes from the lack of proper modelling of how upstream / downstream flows and / or shear hit the aircraft, or the way inertia is taken into consideration because the way most aircraft bounce like mad at such high rates is simply inconsistent with the laws of Physics ...

Edited by jcomm
  • Like 2

Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Lenovo TB310FU 9,5" Tablet for Navigraph and some available external FMCs or AVITABs

Posted
1 hour ago, Jeeeno said:

I tested realistic and it definitely reduced the useless turbulence where it shouldn't be any. However, on the other hand, now there is no turbulence where it should be.

It's the classic Asobo approach: overreacting. 

thank you - I know the work of the developers is not easy of course - but you said exactly what seems to happen at Asobo - overreacting - when people say "the weather is not correct" - (according to metar or whatever) the actual problem is not addressed but everything is turned around - and then neither the look nor the weather is correct (partly, although I see improvements since the last update - towards what we had before SU7).
The same is with the turbulence - either people don't express themselves clearly, or it is misunderstood - that's why these "wish lists" are a bit "dangerous". 
"Turbulences are too strong where THEY SHOULD NOT BE" should rather have been said - and not the turbulences are too strong in general - which leads to the fact that of course there is too little in the tubeliners or we have them neither in the clouds nor in the storms. (Some of which no longer exist since SU7). 
We have had quite stormy winds in Central Europe recently and the approaches were not "pleasant" - and that was not "unrealistic" in the MSFS - yes the frequency of the wind change and the impacts were a bit too much, that may be - but to adjust that down again just because the actual faults cannot be corrected is unfortunately typical Asobo development, I have been with them since the alpha version - and I am not saying that they are doing a bad job and we must be glad that on our beloved flight sims they are still working on the new versions - but things should be changed with more care !

 

 

  • Like 2

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D , watercooled, GeForce RTX 4090, RAM 64GB Kingston Fury 6000Mhz , Fractal Design 7 XL, MSI X670 Carbon, all SSD

Posted

At one point during the past few months, Robert Randazzo at PMDG noted in one of his detailed discussions that the then-current turbulence model induced g-forces that routinely exceeded the structural limits of commercial aircraft. To me, at least, that sounds like an "unrealistic" depiction of the flight environment. 

Granted some people might enjoy such an experience and maybe Asobo ought to add an "unrealistic" setting to the turbulence choices. I've tried a couple of flights at the "realistic" setting and the resulting fluctuations in wind speed and direction seemed much more in keeping with what I would expect in the real world than previously. To me at least, it was totally satisfactory for airliner operations, but it may be that the simulation needs to be further tweaked to satisfy glider pilots.

Kudos to Asobo for making continued improvements.

John Wiesenfeld KPBI | FAA PPL/SEL/IFR in a galaxy long ago and far away | VATSIM PILOT P2

i7-11700K, 32 GB DDR4 3.6 GHz, MSI RTX 3070ti, Dell 4K monitor

 

Posted
6 hours ago, wim123 said:

depends on what aircraft you fly too, light ones on medium certainly not on rails.

maybe tell us the aircraft you fly?

 

I have listed all the aircraft I have and fly. Since SU12 it was often the PMDG 737 700 and 900 as well as the DC-6.

7800x3d+4090

JF Bae146+Arrows+F28, BS Dukes+Bonanza+KingAir, FSR500, Cows Da42, FX Hjet+Vision, FSW 414+Lear, FSS 175+P2006T, Fenix 320, PMDG DC6+7379+777, C22J, Milvis 310+Porter, SWS Kodiak+PC12+Zenith+RV14, BR Goose, IFE MB3339+F35.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...