New Turbulence Setting

[cianpars 1,158]

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?

[robert young 2,897]

Yes, and there is a definite improvement, but still a way to go before it feels right.

[Sonosusto 666]

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.

[V1ROTA7E 718]

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

[LRBS 942]

14 minutes ago, V1ROTA7E said:

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

assistance

[wim123 758]

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?

[UKflyer 630]

probably this that flipped my fenix on short final to Tenerife yesterday!

Edited March 26, 2023 by UKflyer

[bobcat999 8,438]

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.  

Edited March 26, 2023 by bobcat999

[Jeeeno 314]

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. 

[CapnCrunch 89]

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.

[cianpars 1,158]

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.

[jcomm 5,882]

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 March 26, 2023 by jcomm

[AUA425 130]

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 !

 

 

[jrw4 623]

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.

[Sonosusto 666]

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.