6 hours ago, blingthinger said:

And you aren't. You're the one who suddenly hyped it up with wild fonts in a wall-of-text post and deflections of being "clear". All you had to say was "yes I'm using it again". That's it.

For my part, knowing that it's the driving thought process behind your work simply means that I won't bother trying to engage in a technical sense any further because I might as well just ask chatgpt and I'll end up with statistical parity with the answers. That's it.

I think you are being unfair. He is clearly stating he is using Claude as a development tool, and is asking specifically technical questions here to improve his understanding of the subject and if what he is getting back is correct. He is not relying on the LLM for this, but merely using it as a starting point ( one has to start somewhere).

Well,

it puzzles me how a thread started by an enthusiastic endeavour of the same forum member who recently had introduced his "AutoHaze" version, not a bot for sure but rather someone / real Human being behind his tag who's been with AVSIM since about 6 yrs, derailed because of another rather sterile discussion about AI, the use of AI, the meaning of the use of AI... and the like....

@MrBitstFlyer, I will follow your work at the .Org, and use your contributions as far as you keep making it available to the community, working enthusiastically as you do and , for free !!!

You've done a very nice work with your AutoHaze plugin, and I am sure whatever you come up with for turbulence will be nice to use too.

Keep the enthusiasm, keep using AI to it's best like everything in life should be used, given that everything in Life has it's bright and it's moon side... and It's up to our minds to take the best out of everything as much as we can.

 

Edited May 8May 8 by jcomm

On 5/7/2026 at 12:23 PM, blingthinger said:

I reiterate an earlier question: how many frequency modes is the lua applying to generate the final signal? Or is it applying the continuous spectrum somehow? 

.

Edited May 8May 8 by blingthinger

Mr BitstFlyer can consult AI, three monkeys, chicken entrails, tea leaves or the Dalai Lama for all I care - what counts is the result, and with AutoHaze, he most certainly delivered. I don't see any helpful products coming from the knocking critics in this thread.

Edited May 9May 9 by Brian Mackie

Mr BitsFlyer - interesting question to consider. I guess the issue is ignoring so called AI outcome is turbulence and its impact on an airframe in flight. 

hOW an   aeroplane responds depends on its design envelope of +ve and -ve G over a range of speed and weights. I would suggest the US Air Force Text - Aerodyamics for Naval Aviators and off coure Kermodes classic Flight

your answer is YES it is possible that an aircraft in a banked attitude  that is both rolling and yawing could theoretically lose significant lift on one side sufficient to slow or retard centrifugal forces. It depends on the axis displaced. You then have a control problem  

12 hours ago, Brian Mackie said:

Mr BitstFlyer can consult AI......knocking critics in this thread

Not a single person here has said he shouldn't use it. Not I, nor anyone else.

I also don't see anyone criticizing any of any of his work. At all. In any forum or discussion thread.

What is interesting is that so many of you have somehow managed to conjure those images up in your minds. Is that the conclusion you jump to when someone asks technical questions that you either don't or refuse to try to understand? If that is the case, then wow...what a community you have here. 

 

12 minutes ago, coastaldriver said:

lose significant lift on one side sufficient to slow or retard centrifugal forces

Lose lift on one side: so you're suggesting a roll in the opposite direction, forced by the turbulence?

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Not a single person here has said he shouldn't use it. Not I, nor anyone else.

I also don't see anyone criticizing any of any of his work. At all. In any forum or discussion thread.

What is interesting is that so many of you have somehow managed to conjure those images up in your minds. Is that the conclusion you jump to when someone asks technical questions that you either don't or refuse to try to understand? If that is the case, then wow...what a community you have here. 

 

Lose lift on one side: so you're suggesting a roll in the opposite direction, forced by the turbulence?

And you asked valid questions indeed, namely here:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/695031-question-for-you-real-pilots/#findComment-5751864

and here:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/695031-question-for-you-real-pilots/#findComment-5751867

as well as in here:

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/695031-question-for-you-real-pilots/#findComment-5752221

So, in the end, you and @uwespeed offered a critic approach towards the value of information collected through AI agents based in LLM, with you actually contributing to the investigation MrBitsFlyer is running on the modeling of turbulence, and visibility.

Please accept my appologies for the post I made the other day but when I read :

"Not at all. The LLM is doing the vast majority of the "thinking" both here and in the other thread. You're just feeding it your feelings on the topics. You're only clarifying your usage here in this thread because I brought it up. If I remember correctly, it was the same situation in the other thread (queried by someone else). You also don't mention it in your file post over on .org. Curious... "

and then uwespeed's comments, I thought they would instead of supporting MrBitsFlyer's inspiration, make him feel like the kind of feedback he was getting from Claude was "trash"... using a hyperbole.

And let's hope @MrBitstFlyer also feels ok with continuing to post here about the progress with his work !

 

 

Edited May 9May 9 by jcomm

One just need to look at effect of wake turbulence

 

23 hours ago, jcomm said:

instead of supporting MrBitsFlyer's inspiration, make him feel like the kind of feedback he was getting from Claude was "trash"

So you were protecting emotions at the potential cost of technical accuracy. Actually it's not potential. Because Bits posted his interactions with the LLM (rookie move, yo), I can see places where it's gone off the rails. I won't go further there because clearly feelings matter more than accuracy. 

I'm in favor of using LLMs to learn; even write code to some degree. What I wanted to clarify was the tone Bits implied at the start which was that he had:

researched turbulence

found a report

read the report

understood the report

was implementing a model in the report as computer code

Turns out that none of that is true aside from the LLM search telling him about the existence of a model. Why did I want to know this? Because it would change how I try to potentially help fix what was wrong, but apparently egos and emotions dominate.

And to those of you mumbling right now about "who cares, F.U. it's just a 'free' plugin": zoom out to the rest of the ai discussions happening around the world right now and I suppose just sit back and let the world burn? At least your simulated bounciness will give you a warm/fuzzy while it does.

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Because Bits posted his interactions with the LLM (rookie move, yo).

I'll jump back in just to correct some assumptions made here.  Yes, I am a little emotional  at times - in my mid sixties I am not interested in conflict, especially on a hobby website.  I posted a little interaction with AI because I was enthusiastic at what it was helping me produce, and I just felt others may find it interesting. That is it.  Your statement above shows exactly why I didn't like the way you were taking the discussion.

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

I can see places where it's gone off the rails. I won't go further there because clearly feelings matter more than accuracy. 

 

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

What I wanted to clarify was the tone Bits implied at the start which was that he had:

researched turbulence

found a report

read the report

understood the report

was implementing a model in the report as computer code

Turns out that none of that is true aside from the LLM search telling him about the existence of a model. Why did I want to know this? Because it would change how I try to potentially help fix what was wrong, but apparently egos and emotions dominate.

I approached this in several ways.

I Had an initial discussion with another forum member privately about what I wanted to achieve, including input from several reports he pointed me to that are available on the web.  I was given very good information on what I had in mind after the basic turbulence script was completed.  

The script itself has a built in test mode. Each test (seven in total for each round of tests) is shown on screen as a test card showing the required XP12 weather setup. I have individual tests for calm air, crosswinds, gusty crosswinds (with and without XP12 turbulence), circuit flying and approach.

Each test writes a CSV spreadsheet while I fly.  The file records wind, gusts, XP12 turbulence input, Dryden gust components, injected roll/pitch/yaw moments, vertical forces, bumps, roll snaps, bank angle and many others.  After each flight the AI analyses the data, rather than relying on my feelings. 

The aim is to tune the script so the underlying turbulence behaves as close to Dryden as possible within the XP12 environment, while shaping how that turbulence is applied to the XP12 flight model.  The script at V1 will be a LUA only script, but my plans are to expand this with following versions.

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

And to those of you mumbling right now about "who cares, F.U. it's just a 'free' plugin": zoom out to the rest of the ai discussions happening around the world right now and I suppose just sit back and let the world burn? At least your simulated bounciness will give you a warm/fuzzy while it does.

Again, it is this tone I am not interested in engaging with.  I'm approaching this project as a flight sim enthusiast who feels XP12 turbulence is a little predictable.  I'm using the Dryden model as the reference point to see if I can get the turbulence in XP12 more believable. I couldn't create a script with the required technical knowledge, so I am using AI to crunch the numbers and analyse the testing CSV files.

Each successive round of tests and tuning gets me closer to the Dryden specification.

 

Edited May 10May 10 by MrBitstFlyer

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Again, it is this tone I am not interested in engaging with

Then you misunderstand that my tone is, for the most part, not directed at you. I don't like contention either.

However I do even more dislike intentional misinformation and misdirection. Why did you paste such a huge wall of text in your initial responses? Because you felt like someone was calling you out as a fraud? Because you know that this ai topic IS a hot one right now? Maybe some of both?

There are entire websites and companies and organizations fully banning ai-generated content. A lotttttt of people are furious about This. Very. Situation. One that you (hopefully accidentally) think is no big deal. So my only tone to you on this topic is: it is kind of a big deal. If you're going to be posting on a public website (hobby or not) in the future, be aware that they way you treated it is going to raise eyebrows.

I personally don't give a hoot if you are LLM'ing your code or not. I probed for clarification because these days there is one thing worse than not reading the report: reading it and not understanding it and then making a technical and emotional mess of the model implementation in a public forum. If I know you're LLM'ing most of it, I can phrase things in way that won't accidentally make you look like the south end of a north-bound horse. If you find an error, everyone can chuckle that the ai is a word not allowed sometimes and move on because "haha sometimes they do that glad it was found before it was released to the public". 

 

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

rather than relying on my feelings

Why didn't you clarify something like this at the start!!?

Don't get me wrong. I have questions/doubts about exactly which data and what the LLM is doing with the data, but seriously??....you gave off all manner of tone and reaction that trained technical professionals have... no interest in engaging with.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Because you felt like someone was calling you out as a fraud? Because you know that this ai topic IS a hot one right now? Maybe some of both?

I answered that - I was excited at the possibilities and thought others would find it interesting - maybe some people may have experimented themselves.  Again, you just ignore what I said and continue hinting I am not be truthful with my reply. Why?

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

If you're going to be posting on a public website (hobby or not) in the future, be aware that they way you treated it is going to raise eyebrows.

Raise eyebrows in a constructive way I can accept, but several of your statements have been anything but.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

I probed for clarification because these days there is one thing worse than not reading the report: reading it and not understanding it and then making a technical and emotional mess of the model implementation

Which is why I just posted my methodology for testing the data, but you haven't commented on that at all.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Why didn't you clarify something like this at the start!!?

Maybe because the tone of your earlier posts didn't exactly inspire engagement?

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

but seriously??....you gave off all manner of tone and reaction

Yes, you did.

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

I have questions/doubts about exactly which data and what the LLM is doing with the data

Well, I just stated my methodology and the data I am testing with.  I am more than happy with questions, not the negativity you continually aim at me. 

On 5/10/2026 at 2:40 AM, blingthinger said:

Not a single person here has said he shouldn't use it. Not I, nor anyone else.

I also don't see anyone criticizing any of any of his work. At all. In any forum or discussion thread.

What is interesting is that so many of you have somehow managed to conjure those images up in your minds. Is that the conclusion you jump to when someone asks technical questions that you either don't or refuse to try to understand? If that is the case, then wow...what a community you have here. 

 

Lose lift on one side: so you're suggesting a roll in the opposite direction, forced by the turbulence?

Yes - basic aerodynamics stipulates that there is a strong couple between ROLL and YAW so a roll will cause Yaw and yaw will cause a ROLL. The issue with turbulence is that it is measured as a displacement of the flight path vertically - can be up can be down and is related to the direction of the relative airflow as it hits the lift surface or wing! That in turn is related to the overall load factors or design of the aircraft which is why there is a minimum speed to allow for full control deflections in flight as opposed to see the ulitmate limit which is VNE. So in real life so to speak in turb you always need to reduce speed to allow for the LF which is the speed the airframe can cope with before things break and the measure is for full control deflection - you can see the problems of the envelope restrictions for any aeroplane by comparing VNE with VA. I know it is not helpful other than to say I always have a look at the overall LF and envelope diagram for any aircraft or aeroplane as they say a picture is worth a thousand words! For a good example of a GA aeroplane look at the Cessna 210 the difference between cruise and control is significant basically it is telling your throw this around in turb at speeds above this your going to break something or pull off a wing!

3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

continually

Booo. I'm not aiming negativity at you and you know it. You "signed off" of the discussion a long time ago without answering any of my algorithm questions which were never worded negatively.  You were immediately bizarrely defensive against a perfectly normal query into how you wrote the code. Any reticence to suddenly embrace your reappearance and gleefully ask more questions is 100% your fault, especially since you insist on misunderstanding my points above as negative.

That said, is that even necessary at this point? Is there anything still "broken" in your eyes? It sounds like you have it fixed, no? It sounded like the LLM addressed your OP point before you even asked it (which is good because it means you don't trust it 100%). If it's fixed now then all good. I'll possibly peruse your lua after you post it.

Edited May 11May 11 by blingthinger

@MrBitsFlyer, looking fwd for additional improvements to your LUA script !

For sure it'll leave us in a better situation than default turbulence in Xp12.

I believe they (LR) will also implement what a forum member at the .Org was trying to pass regarding the rather "nervous" way the variable winds reported in observations were being coded, and in 12.5 we may get an improved representation of variable winds, which have always been poorly modeled and could spoil some approaches and landing even with the most credited addons.

X-Plane is a good example of how the community, willing to offer it's contributions, can really contribute to make it better.

Edited May 11May 11 by jcomm