Active Sky & RealTurbulence

[mikeklimek 158]

So in the regular 'Active Sky' threads, I've noticed a few posts mention that Active Sky and RealTurbulence seem to work well together.  For those who have both, can you expand on that a bit?  Any insight on how the turbulence settings in AS play dovetail with RealTurbulence?  I assume they don't double-up on each other as that might make it unrealistic, is that an accurate statement? 

Or is RealTurbulence even really needed if using AS? 

The reason I ask is I would like to get what is considered "realistic" turbulence, but I'm unclear how using both affects "realism", or if both aren't really needed and AS alone is sufficient. Hope that makes sense. Thoughts?

[mmcmah 442]

57 minutes ago, mikeklimek said:

So in the regular 'Active Sky' threads, I've noticed a few posts mention that Active Sky and RealTurbulence seem to work well together.  For those who have both, can you expand on that a bit?  Any insight on how the turbulence settings in AS play dovetail with RealTurbulence?  I assume they don't double-up on each other as that might make it unrealistic, is that an accurate statement? 

Or is RealTurbulence even really needed if using AS? 

The reason I ask is I would like to get what is considered "realistic" turbulence, but I'm unclear how using both affects "realism", or if both aren't really needed and AS alone is sufficient. Hope that makes sense. Thoughts?

I have read of quite a few that use both. I stopped using RealTurb when I installed ASFS and haven't yet decided to turn it back on. Recently, ASFS turned up the amount of turbulence and I'm happy with that. Still testing, though.

[edu2703 281]

My definition of realistic turbulence is: The stronger it is, the more realistic it is. Strong, IF weather conditions are conducive to turbulence and also not too strong to bring down an aircraft. I've been using both without problems, but I think RealTurb overrides its effects over ASFS.

Personally I think turbulence effects of RealTurb are better than those of ASFS. Not only are they stronger, but they also fell like more natural. ASFS turbulence effects appear to occur in slow motion and don't have a good amplitude. Even Damiam Clark admits RealTurb's effects are better in this thread on HiFi forum

https://forums.hifisimtech.com/threads/realturb-cat-areas-global-and-asfs.14845/

[Cpt_Piett 4,818]

On 4/28/2024 at 4:22 AM, mmcmah said:

I have read of quite a few that use both. I stopped using RealTurb when I installed ASFS and haven't yet decided to turn it back on. Recently, ASFS turned up the amount of turbulence and I'm happy with that. Still testing, though.

Same, still testing. Not sure if you remember my 30-40 kts x-wind landing in the TBM, but that was wild in terms of turbulence. Although it was probably a few beta versions ago.

There’s definitely a correlation between turbulence and wind strength, but what about thermal turbulence? Just did a flight near Ayers Rock, and didn’t experience much turbulence at all. 

Come to think of it, I was low-flying over hills in the Tomahawk (less than 1000kg) and didn’t really get much, if any mechanical turbulence either.

Btw I’ve never tried RealTurb so I guess I’m going off topic here.

METAR YBAS 290330Z AUTO 16012KT 100V160 9999 // NCD 24/M04 Q1021

Edited April 29 by Cpt_Piett