16 minutes ago, Cognita said:

Is this the default Neo

yes

I just took off with 100% structure ice and it didn't feel any different. I did have like a 30 knot headwind and 25knot crosswind though, so maybe it got lost in that lol

Edited December 29, 2025Dec 29 by Tuskin38

I don't know if it has gotten worse, but there have been complaints about ice formation in these forums and in the official ones, as well as turbulence and the weather in general for years, and so far there seems to be no willingness on Asobo's part to fix it. The weather in MFS is basically a storm front in MFS that commands no respect.

It has also been insisted that if they do not want to address the issue of weather, they should at least open the API to third parties, but Asobo does not seem willing to do so either.

Hopefully, one day they will shut us up on this issue and we will have the realistic weather that this simulator deserves, but honestly, the more time passes without any real improvements, the more I suspect that they do not want to improve it to avoid upsetting more casual users.

 

 

I am not sure because pre SU4 icing seemed, for lack of a better word, more realistic, both the visual indication of it and the feeling of heaviness or sluggishness of the airframe. So I am wondering if something was changed in SU4 that has affected third-party aircraft. 

I find MSFS live weather basically accurate, in fact, many times when I look up the conditions they are basically spot on. I am generally impressed with what they have done and I don't want to go back down the road of opening up the API -- if they have not done this after nearly 6 years I think that request has been clearly answered.

40 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

Hopefully, one day they will shut us up on this issue and we will have the realistic weather that this simulator deserves, but honestly, the more time passes without any real improvements, the more I suspect that they do not want to improve it to avoid upsetting more casual users.

Jorg has already mentioned they want to improve weather. It's a matter of priority and nothing to do with upsetting casual users, since things like icing and turbulence can be turned down or off.

Icing did have its issues in the past... Not sure if it was SP2 or 3, but I could be sitting on the tarmac in the Vision Jet with no visible moisture and ice would start accumulating before I even started the engine.

39 minutes ago, Funky D said:

Jorg ya mencionó que quieren mejorar el clima. Es una cuestión prioritaria y no tiene nada que ver con molestar a los usuarios ocasionales, ya que factores como la formación de hielo y las turbulencias se pueden reducir o desactivar.

La formación de hielo tuvo sus problemas en el pasado... No estoy seguro si fue SP2 o 3, pero podría estar sentado en el asfalto en el Vision Jet sin humedad visible y el hielo comenzaría a acumularse incluso antes de arrancar el motor.

Yes, there is a video, if I remember correctly, from 2022, where he said exactly that....

1 hour ago, Cognita said:

No estoy seguro, porque antes del SU4 la formación de hielo parecía, a falta de una palabra mejor, más realista, tanto por su indicación visual como por la sensación de pesadez o lentitud del fuselaje. Así que me pregunto si se modificó algo en el SU4 que haya afectado a los aviones de terceros. 

Considero que el tiempo en vivo de MSFS es bastante preciso; de hecho, muchas veces, cuando consulto las condiciones, son totalmente exactas. En general, estoy impresionado con lo que han hecho y no quiero volver a abrir la API. Si no lo han hecho después de casi 6 años, creo que esa petición ha sido claramente atendida.

Is it accurate? Sorry, but no. In MFS, flying through a very intense storm front in a Cessna 152 and getting through it without any problems or consequences is anything but accurate.

Why don't you want to open the API? Many of us here are forced to use third-party add-ons such as Realturb or Active Sky to try to have a minimally decent experience. If Asobo can't fix the weather and make it truly accurate, not just aesthetic, then at least give these people access so they can do so. The rest of you can continue with your wonderful live weather; no one is forcing you to use third-party products.

I just jumped in the default Cessna 404, -5c and dropping and the only icing effect I saw was on the fuselage and that wasn't a large area by any means, absolutely nothing on the windscreens. I flew for a good 5 minutes but nothing appeared, I did get warnings to turn on various Icing stuff (forgive me the tech terms!) but visually practically nothing.

Did a second quick flight in -30c and the same thing, icing is turned ON in the settings and all graphics were at ULTRA so nothing was missed.

27 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

In MFS, flying through a very intense storm front in a Cessna 152 and getting through it without any problems or consequences is anything but accurate.

And flying through any kind of storm front is something you would never do in a 152 in real life. I could complain about the poor flight dynamics in every sim at the edges of the flight envelope but I don't, because it's something that is only really relevant in aerobatics and maybe some extreme bush flying, and it is something that most users are not doing.

If you are flying through intense storms, you are not treating MSFS like a sim. The "sim" relationship goes both ways.

16 minutes ago, Funky D said:

And flying through any kind of storm front is something you would never do in a 152 in real life. I could complain about the poor flight dynamics in every sim at the edges of the flight envelope but I don't, because it's something that is only really relevant in aerobatics and maybe some extreme bush flying, and it is something that most users are not doing.

If you are flying through intense storms, you are not treating MSFS like a sim. The "sim" relationship goes both ways.

But then surely you have to question the legitimacy of the physics coding if doesn't simulate what would happen in the real world, for me the idea of a Simulation is exactly that, to simulate the real. If it's not simulating the real - in this case flying a C152 through a thunderstorm with ease - then it becomes <gasp> Arcade (sorry!) in that scenario at the very least.

So that begs the question why wouldn't you want the closest physics simulation to the real thing? If there are areas to complain about then those are legitimate complaints, if there's areas of the physics that are not closely matched to real life then those are areas that need attention. Whether you fly in those particular areas (aerobatics/Bush) or not is neither here nor there, some people do so don't they deserve the closest simulation to the real thing as possible?

As with every simulation, be it flight or car racing etc, every single developer is always finding a way to tweak and amend physics coding to make it more life like. It's practically a never-ending quest which is a fascinating discussion across the board and yes right now MSFS2024 is a very good physics product, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement 🙂

EDIT: For reference Asobo have altered physics effects before to appease the "Arcade" flyer, hopefully they no longer do this....
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/realistic-up-and-downdraft-option/

Edited December 29, 2025Dec 29 by MarcG

51 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

Is it accurate? Sorry, but no. In MFS, flying through a very intense storm front in a Cessna 152 and getting through it without any problems or consequences is anything but accurate.

Yea, as Funky D said above, it is difficult for me to expect a home-entertainment simulator to produce highly realistic turbulence associated with convective activity -- the result of  complex, three‑dimensional, thermodynamically driven vertical motion. There is no home simulator that has near the computational headroom to model that kind of physics in real time. It really is just not possible to get that close to reality in that kind of environment at this time with the hardware that people have. So I just don't judge MSFS or any other simulator by considering that. And no third-party is going to figure it out either because there are just hard limits on how much computation can be done. If someone dedicates a lot of time to it maybe they could figure out ways of making it seem closer to what it might feel like, but in the end that is not so important to me as I try to fly realistically and  realistic flying means steering very clear of any kind of storm front. 

59 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

Why don't you want to open the API?

Sorry, I gave the wrong impression in what I wrote. I have no issue at all with opening up the API. I was just saying that after all the gnashing of teeth on forums an in livestreams over the past 6 years they have not opened the API for weather. So I just have no reasonable expectation that they will do so and think it is probably better to focus attention on helping Asobo improve the weather. 

 

21 minutes ago, MarcG said:

Did a second quick flight in -30c and the same thing, icing is turned ON in the settings and all graphics were at ULTRA so nothing was missed.

I had an hour or so I did some longer tests, first on the default 172 and then in the Blacksquare Bonzana. I flew up in northern Newfoundland where right now it is snow and freezing rain. Both planes did show visible icing and eventually the airspeed did begin to drop suggesting  that it is modelling the impact of ice on the airframe. However, it took a good 10 to 15 minutes before the airframe really began to ice. The windshield showed ice much sooner. To be honest, it struck me as much more realistic than in early times, when it would be fully iced while sitting on the ground doing the preflight. They may have dialed this in better. 

 

 

So I've been in a lot turbulence including very bad one and even once survived thunderstorm - I wasn't fun because I honestly thought it was it. Ironically, I ended in thunderstorm in Comanche during one of ferry flights.

Back to MSFS.I think right now turbulence is in par in my real world experience especially after SU4. Downdrafts /updrafts are very realistically "depicted" now. I flew in A2A Comanche on other day flying over ridge in real stormy CA weather. I got all kind of bumps and rocks including the one I hate IRL when airplane "falls" on the wing and controls become ineffective until they comes back to live and you overcompensate LOL Heavy turbulence in IMC is even more "drag" because you can end fighting unusual attitude by solely instrument reference !

 

Anyway all we need is for Asobo to correct icing!     

Oldy but goodie

 

17 minutes ago, Funky D said:

Volar a través de cualquier tipo de frente tormentoso es algo que jamás harías en un 152 en la vida real. Podría quejarme de la mala dinámica de vuelo en todos los simuladores, pero no lo hago, porque es algo que solo es realmente relevante en acrobacias aéreas y quizás en algunos vuelos extremos en zonas silvestres, y es algo que la mayoría de los usuarios no hacen.

Si vuelas en medio de tormentas intensas, no estás tratando a MSFS como un simulador. La relación "simulador" es recíproca.

I have cited an extreme case, but it is not difficult to understand that in more common and less dangerous situations, the simulator will perform just as poorly, whether with a Cessna 152 or an A380.

Turbulence in GA aircraft is fine in 2024, but in bigger aircraft it's essentially not there. I've flown through many a severe thunderstorm with barely an effect on the airliner.

Edited December 29, 2025Dec 29 by Tuskin38

16 minutes ago, MarcG said:

So that begs the question why wouldn't you want the closest physics simulation to the real thing? If there are areas to complain about then those are legitimate complaints, if there's areas of the physics that are not closely matched to real life then those are areas that need attention.

I agree with you, and I'm not saying these areas don't deserve attention. But the horse has been beaten to death by this point. My original point was Asobo has their priorities, and tackling weather before all of the bug and performance fixes in SU4 would not have been a good use of resources when weather is currently "good enough" for the majority of users under most circumstances. As of the last development update, realistic dangerous weather was #12 on the wishlist.

And just because we have an apparent regression in icing doesn't mean Asobo is caving into the gaming users. That should have been apparent after they added the realism options. In the sim's current state, ATC, AI traffic, and career mode need the most love. We'll likely get trickles of updates to the weather engine and aerodynamics while they iron out the larger sim-breaking issues.