Good question.  I guess they're probably related as one affects the other?  So maybe you could say it's both. 

Either way, I'm just glad they understood there would be a need to back it off, vs forcing everyone to use "realistic".

12 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

It's subjective for sure, but about this, all I can think is that people are being subconsciously influenced by the name "realistic"... As intended, probably.  Because I mean, airplanes simply don't get tossed around like that in afternoon thermals or mechanical turb from 10kts of wind.  I think part of it might be that they're using exaggerated effects because the sim is purely visual.  If you were actually in an airplane getting tossed like that, it would feel an awful lot more violent than just looking at it on a screen.  You can see this if you use a tool to display vertical acceleration (g) in some of this turbulence... No one is routinely experiencing 2 or 3g on a normal afternoon.  Your average non-aerobatic GA pilot (to say nothing of passengers) wouldn't like that at all. 😉

Yes, it's subjective, and the term "realistic" is related to how the sim works with the "turbulence" concept, it's their "pure" interpretation of turbulences (and I find it good at the moment, but waiting for improvements, the gliders are waiting for a more complete wind dynamics). Just to observe that you can have turbulence at 0kts wind in the real world, because the turbulences and the winds are not related in many cases. In FS20 I like the 1000ft turbulences when landing, I don't know and I don't care about the g factor, my only concern is when I fly at 38000ft over the Alps with a liner and the airplane has turbulences, everytime and in any weather condition.