I am also having trouble posting here using my computer, so I have to do it using my phone. I realized shortly after posting my message that I had not used a direct crosswind, so I did that later. But with the posting issues and @MattNischanchiming in, I did not post it. 

Also, the assertion that the airplane knows the accurate wind while traveling down the runway is incorrect. It can only know the headwind/tailwind component accurately because there is no difference between the heading and track of the airplane during the takeoff roll. You can see the wind depiction change as the airplane weather vanes after takeoff: 

As an aside, it isn't the FMS that computers the wind direction/speed in Airbus airplanes. Finally, while wind velocity is technically unrelated to magnetic variation, it is extremely important to know whether the reported winds are relative to true or magnetic north in areas of significant magnetic variation when trying to determine headwind/tailwind vs crosswind component. 

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

I agree with you, let s  start with the main developer, ASOBO.

Given what Matt Nischan (from the main development team of Asobo+WT) said above, it is... rather clear isn't it. There is no sim limitation/issue here, it is up to the aircraft developers to update their flight models/configs. Reading this bit of what he said again might help (note the bolded parts in particular for further education).

Aircraft that properly use those parameters will not have this wind reduction at the aircraft position and you will see the 100% values reported in the aircraft displays. There is no systemic limitation built into the weather engine itself that prevents it from providing accurate surface winds. These CFG parameters are opt-in in order to not break the aircraft that were tuned using the previous behavior for customers of those aircraft.

 

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by lwt1971

28 minutes ago, Donstim said:

I am also having trouble posting here using my computer, so I have to do it using my phone. I realized shortly after posting my message that I had not used a direct crosswind, so I did that later. But with the posting issues and @MattNischanchiming in, I did not post it. 

Also, the assertion that the airplane knows the accurate wind while traveling down the runway is incorrect. It can only know the headwind/tailwind component accurately because there is no difference between the heading and track of the airplane during the takeoff roll. You can see the wind depiction change as the airplane weather vanes after takeoff: 

As an aside, it isn't the FMS that computers the wind direction/speed in Airbus airplanes. Finally, while wind velocity is technically unrelated to magnetic variation, it is extremely important to know whether the reported winds are relative to true or magnetic north in areas of significant magnetic variation when trying to determine headwind/tailwind vs crosswind component. 

I'll be very direct: I listed the systems in Boeing and Airbus that provide accurate wind data (with minimal variations) displayed on the ND or PFD. Since you are not familiar or a real pilot with these systems and their interactions, you may not understand and could draw incorrect conclusions. Regarding the FMS, that's incorrect again; it computes TRK/GS from successive positions, receives HDG and TAS from the system, then solves for the final side of the vector triangle and computes wind direction and velocity within 0 to 100 KTS, displaying that information on the ND or PFD. I haven't flown the 321, but I'm currently dual-qualified in the 748 and 388, and yes, they also provide very accurate wind direction and speed during takeoff roll.

Gentlemen, the issue here is that there are problems related to aerodynamics regarding how the aircraft reacts to wind. This has been, and still is a significant concern. Despite all the adjustments to ground friction and other tweaks, we continue to see undesirable results without addressing the main problem: aircraft physics. If the aerodynamics were accurate, we wouldn't need entries like ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed and ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed values to mask the real issue. 

Now, if we want to make excuses for something that isn’t right, feel free to do so. It gets to the point where I'm afraid we waste our time and unnecessary resistance to improve a product. Good luck.

12 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Gentlemen, the issue here is that there are problems related to aerodynamics regarding how the aircraft reacts to wind. This has been, and still is a significant concern. Despite all the adjustments to ground friction and other tweaks, we continue to see undesirable results without addressing the main problem: aircraft physics. If the aerodynamics were accurate, we wouldn't need entries like ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed and ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed values to mask the real issue. 

Now, if we want to make excuses for something that isn’t right, feel free to do so. It gets to the point where I'm afraid we waste our time and unnecessary resistance to improve a product. Good luck.

I agree although I did notice a better reaction to crosswind due to the additional details added to the ground physics, irrespective of those variables.

Previously, in FS 2020, I couldn't properly takeoff / land or simply taxi with aircraft not using those "massage" variables, but in FS 2024 even aircraft without those variables being used are now perfectly controllable within their published limits.

OFC I am not saying it is now perfect!, but it surely feels better... 

Haven't tested the only I could evaluate from my RW experience - gliders, but that's because the gliders I have in FS 2024 are the default ones, so I don't have access to their FLIGHT_DYNAMICS.CFG 

23 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Gentlemen, the issue here is that there are problems related to aerodynamics regarding how the aircraft reacts to wind. This has been, and still is a significant concern. Despite all the adjustments to ground friction and other tweaks, we continue to see undesirable results without addressing the main problem: aircraft physics. If the aerodynamics were accurate, we wouldn't need entries like ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed and ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed values to mask the real issue. 

Reaction to winds is much better with aircraft that employ the new ground handling model (in MSFS 2020 >= SU15, and MSFS 2024). The older model required aircraft to use fudge factors like ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed and ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed. The Cessna 172 (G1000 version) in MSFS 2024 is a stellar example of aircraft aerodynamics handling in winds on the ground and the ground<->air transition.

But once again, the aircraft developers have to take advantage of these new features of the FDE and opt-in as Matt said. The opt-in makes perfect sense since all the existing aircraft tuned to the pre-SU15 ground handling still need to work as they did.
 

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by lwt1971

3 hours ago, LRBS said:

I'll be very direct: I listed the systems in Boeing and Airbus that provide accurate wind data (with minimal variations) displayed on the ND or PFD. Since you are not familiar or a real pilot with these systems and their interactions, you may not understand and could draw incorrect conclusions. Regarding the FMS, that's incorrect again; it computes TRK/GS from successive positions, receives HDG and TAS from the system, then solves for the final side of the vector triangle and computes wind direction and velocity within 0 to 100 KTS, displaying that information on the ND or PFD. I haven't flown the 321, but I'm currently dual-qualified in the 748 and 388, and yes, they also provide very accurate wind direction and speed during takeoff roll.

Since your native language appears to be something other than English, you may have misunderstood what I wrote. The FMS does not provide the wind direction/speed information on the ND for either the A320 series nor the A380. This information comes from the ADIRS. 

When the airplane is on the ground, it's track is constrained by staying on the runway. This means that the airplane is pointing (heading) in the same direction it is traveling (track). The track and heading sides of the vector triangle are in the same direction. What does that mean for the "final" side of the vector triangle? 

Edit: A350s and A380 may be different than the A320s in regards to being able to determine the crosswind on thoe ground. It may be through the sideslip probes. 

Edited March 28, 20251 yr by Donstim

My knowledge of wind is that I used to fly stunt kites, about 20+ years' ago. It does seem to me, that in FS2020, the wind comes in awfully suddenly, which seems strange. Still, I'm only a pretend pilot.

7 hours ago, Donstim said:

Since your native language appears to be something other than English, you may have misunderstood what I wrote. The FMS does not provide the wind direction/speed information on the ND for either the A320 series nor the A380. This information comes from the ADIRS. 

When the airplane is on the ground, it's track is constrained by staying on the runway. This means that the airplane is pointing (heading) in the same direction it is traveling (track). The track and heading sides of the vector triangle are in the same direction. What does that mean for the "final" side of the vector triangle? 

Edit: A350s and A380 may be different than the A320s in regards to being able to determine the crosswind on thoe ground. It may be through the sideslip probes. 

Perhaps if you read carefully what I wrote, you would find me mentioning adiru. On the 380, adiru provides wind data to the FMS, which is displayed on the nd. As I mentioned, I did not fly the320 and am not familiar with the systems. For the 380, besides the information I provided, I can also share with you that the differential pressure readings between the static ports provide crosswind information, beta vanes mounted on the nose also measure crosswind combined with ring laser gyros and quartz accelerometers. Airbus systems across the type are very similar, and the transition between types is very easy. When I did my transition to the 380, it was very easy from the 340. Are you qualified in the 320? I know that Airbuses share the same philosophy and avionics architecture; all use adirus and the information is sent to the fms. 

 

 

 

Soo ... what LRBS and I were shouted down when I posted my videos with the faulty crosswind behaviour on ground. "You have to listen to the real experts and not (to paraphrase) ‘obscure self-appointed experts’". Now that MattNischan has confirmed the wind surface wind behaviour, can I call myself a ‘real expert’? Thank you very much for approval 😉 
I'm thinking of adding this to my signature: "Promoted from 'obscure self-appointed expert' to 'real expert'” 😄 😛 

I'm still trying to understand the issue. Unfortunately. I can't see first two sreenshots posted by LRBS

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Now that MattNischan has confirmed the wind surface wind behaviour, can I call myself a ‘real expert’? Thank you very much for approval 😉

What I have confirmed is that there is no systemic problem with the sim itself, at all.

You can't just go and change everyone's already tuned planes, thus parameters are opt-in. All a developer needs to do is opt in, and then it works as the real world winds do.

I would encourage you to try these parameters and then report the result. You will see the surface winds now act as you would expect in real life.

I also mentioned this as well in the other thread, but perhaps you just missed it. It was a long thread.

On 3/28/2025 at 2:48 PM, LRBS said:

If the aerodynamics were accurate, we wouldn't need entries like ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed and ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed values to mask the real issue.

The aerodynamics are already accurate. These parameters are opt-in in order to not break the tuning of planes made with the other behavior in mind. Using these parameters is not a "fudge" that applies something additionally wrong to force the winds back, it disables entirely the wind cancellation. So there is no core simulator aerodynamic problem here. It is fully capable of having correct behavior.

Perhaps at some point long down the road when mostly everyone is using them (as opposed to a large number still not), then the decision would be made to make it opt-out instead of opt in.

But, the community is very (deservedly so) protective of backwards compatibility. You can't both have backwards compatibility and also make fundamental aero behavior changes that are not opt-in. Those two concepts are by definition mutually exclusive.

I hope that clears things up!

Edited March 29, 20251 yr by MattNischan

1 hour ago, MattNischan said:

What I have confirmed is that there is no systemic problem with the sim itself, at all.

You can't just go and change everyone's already tuned planes, thus parameters are opt-in. All a developer needs to do is opt in, and then it works as the real world winds do.

I would encourage you to try these parameters and then report the result. You will see the surface winds now act as you would expect in real life.

I also mentioned this as well in the other thread, but perhaps you just missed it. It was a long thread.

The aerodynamics are already accurate. These parameters are opt-in in order to not break the tuning of planes made with the other behavior in mind. Using these parameters is not a "fudge" that applies something additionally wrong to force the winds back, it disables entirely the wind cancellation. So there is no core simulator aerodynamic problem here. It is fully capable of having correct behavior.

Perhaps at some point long down the road when mostly everyone is using them (as opposed to a large number still not), then the decision would be made to make it opt-out instead of opt in.

But, the community is very (deservedly so) protective of backwards compatibility. You can't both have backwards compatibility and also make fundamental aero behavior changes that are not opt-in. Those two concepts are by definition mutually exclusive.

I hope that clears things up!

I would like to focus solely on this issue, please.

Time permitting, in MSFS2024, have the LCF out of KJFK31L and set surface wind to 230/20 up to 5,000 FT, with no gusts. During the takeoff roll, upon passing 100 KTS, check the wind on the ND. I only get 230/10, as I pass around 800-900 FT, the wind goes to 230/20 as is set. In real life, when ATC provides wind data as part of the procedure, we crosscheck it during our roll for any discrepancies in direction and velocity. I won't get into specifics here, but there are certain procedures that must be followed in case of any issues. The bottom line is that we should see 230/20, not 10. That’s incorrect. In our case, I have to increase the wind speed to 230/40 to register 20. I conducted various tests with crosswinds, and the issue persists.

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

I would like to focus solely on this issue, please.

That's what I'm trying to do, but for some reason it isn't working, perhaps I'm not being clear enough.

If, in the LCF, you are seeing 50% reduced surface winds, then the aircraft has not opted into the new parameters.

If the LCF opts in to those parameters in the future, then you will see the correct surface winds.

Hopefully that clears it up.

Edited March 30, 20251 yr by MattNischan

13 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

That's what I'm trying to do, but for some reason it isn't working, perhaps I'm not being clear enough.

If, in the LCF, you are seeing 50% reduced surface winds, then the aircraft has not opted into the new parameters.

If the LCF opts in to those parameters in the future, then you will see the correct surface winds.

Hopefully that clears it up.

Thank you for following this. I will have some pictures of other a/c with the same issue. To make it easy, which ones have these new parameters to see if there is any difference, please.