MrBitstFlyer

Download here - AutoHaze Lua Script I would really appreciate feedback from Mac or Linux users as I do not use those OS's.

The quality of the ortho may have been set low on purpose to focus on the autogen.

Left home at 5am and got home at 8pm - not that worrying😁 To be more accurate as far as Dryden is concerned - Dryden shaped gust core with XP12 specific response shaping. Currently the gust channel sigma is accurate between 0.9 to 8.3%. Testing continues. Maybe this isn't currently close enough in your book, but I have been very aware of working the script to the numbers, rather than it feels right (even though it is feeling great). I'll get it as close as possible, but I would imaging Laminar would need to put this in the base sim to be 100% accurate to Dryden.

Yes, single at the moment for development to a stable state - which I'm at now. Currently L, sigma but going to Lu, Lv, Lw sigma_u, sigma_v, sigma_w

That is why I realised the way to go is add/remove effects to XP12's own turbulence. Normal force, Roll/pitch/yaw. wind speed and direction, live/cockpit wind behaviour, used as a gust proxy, XP12 turbulence value where available, airspeed, altitude / AGL, aircraft mass and inertia, roll, pitch and yaw rates, bank/pitch/heading-type state, whether the aircraft is on the ground.

The script is not checking aircraft height, verticle speed and trying to force those to match Dryden - this is what I tried to do in my first attempt and realised this wouldn't work. The script is generating its own Dryden based gust values internally which are logged in a CSV. The gust values go plus and negative, so the script is measuring the size of the movement (gust). A force/moment is added to XP12 effects to improve how that turbulence feels. An 'observer' constantly evaluates how the aircraft responds so it can increase or decrease its added turbulence effect to what XP12 is producing itself. By specification I mean expected behaviour of the generated gust signals. I am mainly checking Dryden based gust signals but also using MIL-F-8785 gust gradients as a small additional rotational cue for roll/pitch/yaw disturbance. It is blended into XP12, rather than replacing XP12's own turbulence model.

Development is going well. I have now included MIL-F-8785 gust gradients. into the calculations. Essentially this is what the script does. Analyze the turbulence XP12 is injecting into the sim. Analyze the turbulence with The Dryden model and MIL-F-8785 gust gradients. Inject the forces required to shape the turbulence to match the model specifications. Feeling very good - the turbulence is +-5% to the model specifications.. I am nearing an initial release as a LUA script only.

Well, this is a very interesting project. All my testing so far has been reading datarefs, including the aircrafts mass, wing dimension, flap settings etc, and injecting the data into the Dryden filters then changing the forces on the aircraft. I am now entering a second round of testing. XP12 obviously knows the aircraft data and is injecting the turbulence. This time I am analysing what turbulence XP12 is injecting into the sim, putting that data through the Dryden filters and then adding/or removing control forces as required to better fit a Dryden response. The script is learning each aircraft and noting what additional/less effects are required to fit the Dryden filters. This may be a better way to go.

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? Raise eyebrows in a constructive way I can accept, but several of your statements have been anything but. Which is why I just posted my methodology for testing the data, but you haven't commented on that at all. Maybe because the tone of your earlier posts didn't exactly inspire engagement? Yes, you did. 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.

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. 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. 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.

I'm going to bow out of this thread. I am excited to find a tool that I can use to create scripts for my enjoyment, scripts that I otherwise couldn't create. I'll release at the org for others to try out and use to see if it increases their use of our wonderful XP12. I am not interested in being psychoanalysed. Why do I need to justify my use of AI - maybe I should also say I use a word processor instead of a typewriter? I posed the question for some useful input from pilots to improved what I - sorry, what Claude AI can produce all by itself, just needing my feelings along the way.

Totally agree there! Sometimes the answers are completely odd. As long as you understand this it is an excellent tool to speed up development, but there is plenty to laugh about along the way!

Same here.

Eh? I was clear in the haze thread I was using Claude, so it was clear I was the source of the ideas. Claude isn't going to create a haze script or a turbulence one either, without a great deal of human input. Without Claude I wouldn't be able to create anything, even though I have ideas and motivation and a lot of love for XP12. For those that don't know much about AI, Claude AI is like having an expert in coding with little knowledge at all how I want XP12 to feel. All my time is spent shaping, correcting and giving guidance of what I'm after and Claude does the drudgery of typing the code and error checking (no insult intended, I loved coding when I was doing it!). I acknowledge your expertise in turbulence modelling and make no claim at all in that field. What I do know is how XP12 feels to me and Claude AI helps me get those ideas into the sim. This may be of interest to some - two examples of an interaction with Claude My input - feeling pretty good. Could you check the relationship between yaw and altitude plus the effect on roll. On approach the yaw amount feels good - floaty, not too sharp. as I climb (not exceeding 2000ft) yaw seems to have too much influence, with even a 45 degree bank seemingly not turning the aircraft for a while - maybe this is excessive yaw? Claude's response - Good observation — let me trace the altitude dependencies for yaw through the code. Found the problem. There are three compounding issues at altitude: gust_t has zero altitude fading — wind speed gust yaw is equally strong at 2000ft as on the ground bm increases with airspeed — climbing faster = stronger yaw moment coefficient w_t at altitude has a much longer time constant — at 500ft, L≈75m (2.3s gusts). At 2000ft, L≈213m (6.9s gusts). So yaw moments persist in one direction for 5+ seconds, which is what's fighting your turns The net result is yaw that's actually stronger and more sustained at 2000ft than on approach. Physically wrong — real surface-layer gustiness drops off rapidly above the boundary layer. Notice how Claude didn't just know there was a bug in the yaw formula? Claude AI does this error checking and bug fixing much quicker, but needs human input - saves a lot of time for us non coders 😁 Another example My input - should we use that second order dryden filter. Apart from the oscilation the turbulence is feeling really good now. Claude response - Good call, the second-order filter is actually the correct Dryden implementation per MIL-STD-1797A. The lateral and vertical channels are specified as second-order transfer functions: H(s) = σ√(L/πV) × (1 + √3·L·s/V) / (1 + L·s/V)² One could ask why Claude didn't just use that second order filter in the first place! I am testing mostly in manual so I can set known conditions, but then also test each version in live weather - it has to be tuned to what XP12 is doing itself, and that was another interesting challenge. If it feels good to me, maybe others will too.

Yes to everything you suggested. Claude is just a tool and can produce quite silly results at times, and as I haven't flown for many years input from you lucky pilots is a valuable input to iron out flaws in the model data/XP12 transition. Thanks for the input. Certainly the Dryden model does introduce a cyclic element to a turn which felt excessive to my past memories of flying. Yes, XPT is a recent release at the org and I have tried it, but it doesn't give me the feeling I remember from flying, especially low down on approach over undulating terrain. Obviously my script will use the same turbulence models (I am using some elements from the more sophisticated Von Karmon model), but the trick is how that data is used within the XP12 environment. I have flown hundreds of circuits while testing at flat, undulating, ridge top, coastal airports in XP12 using default XP12 turbulence and comparing that with what my script produces. I am very pleased with the results so far. When released I can tune it depending on input from pilots of different aircraft types/environments.