So you are talking about the visual aspect, not the performance?
Has anyone checked if the visual ice accretion has been changed to a more realistic way?
Must be a language problem because this statement doesnât make any sense to me.
Doesnât Pre SU4 mean 15 times worse than post SU4?
I dont get this discussion, isnât it really simple? Lets just take what was written in the patch notes: âDecrease structural icing rate by a factor of 15 for severe icing (6 for moderate)â.
For a proper comparison, simply use (arbituary) values and things clear up: for severe icing pre-patch, you might have flown 1 minute in severe icing conditions for the plane being fully covered in ice. Now, after patch, with a 15 times decreased icing rate, you will have to fly 15 minutes in the same conditions for full icing. And so on.
Means: yes, you will still see exactly the same icing after the patch, but it will take much longer (15 times for severe, 6 times for moderate icing) until you are at the same point as before patch.
Simple, no? I guess the âmistakeâ some do here is confusing icing RATE with the final STATE of icing after flying in icing conditions⊠The state can only be considered if the icing rate and the time the plane is flying within this rate is fixed, which is probably never the case (as it varies between moderate and severe icing etc.).
BTW: I did not yet have time to check how the icing is after the patch.
That wouldnât make it any better though. In the sim whenever I tried to fly in real weather in december and january even in sunny weather with a blue sky but for example 0 centigrades my DV20 or C152 would build up ice within a couple of minutes max and the airplane would become unflyable. I know these conditions where I live and I have flown for hours in real life in such a weather without any bit of icing. Why? Because itâs simply too dry. So itâs not really just a time issue but certainly a matter of reality (not realism). You need water, (ram air) temperatur around the freezing point, and a cold and rough surface like a metal wing. An engine cowling or the cabin will not freeze up like it does or did in the sim. Neither will a very smooth wing like of a Diamond Da40 or 62 at that intensity. The ice will fall off before it would make YOU fall out of the sky. It would build up around the wing mountings and on the T-tail. On the fixed gear of the Da40, on the edges of a not 100% closed gear door of the Da62. And it would make approaches/landings dangerous when you become slower. But you would need a very wet cloud and icing temps, maybe even wet snow to ice a composite wing up as much as we saw it in the sim. All that would be a situation where youâd better give up your license anyway.
I havenât tested the new icing yet but I guess what they should have done (and what @PZL104 is suggesting) is reduce the severe icing encounters rather than the severe icing intensity (accretion rate). Severe icing can have a similar performance effect as pre-SU4 in real life so severe icing WAS realistic already. Encountering severe icing nearly every flight is the part that isnât realistic.
2 Likes
Are you talking about the visual effect or performance effects though? Last time I checked the visual effects were completely off, looking like freezing fog overnight on an aircraft (or car). Furthermore cabin and cockpit side windows were freezing up in flight which would subsequently de-ice when turning on windshield heat (at least on the TBM) which makes zero sense. Maybe theyâve fixed the visual effect since in which case I stand corrected.
I have also seen icing conditions in MSFS outside of icing conditions. Which means:
- Visual moisture - precipitation, clouds, mist/fog below 1 statue mile visibility (1600 m)
- Temperature - below 5 degrees TAT (which means certain areas of the airframe, e.g. wings and inlets are sub-zero).
- Freezing nuclei - little particles in the air for water vapor to freeze upon contact, a lack of those can cause supercooled water droplets which freeze upon hitting the airframe. In extreme cases could cause supercooled large droplets (SLD) to form.
The shape of an object has a larger effect on the ice accretion compared to the material it is made of. Interestingly a sharper leading edge is a more efficient icing collector. Which is why if there is ice accretion on the wing leading edge, far more is likely adhering to the tail plane of an aircraft. Engine cowling, cabin and wing surfaces wonât ice up as you are saying, not only because the temperature of engine cowlings, windshields etc., mainly because they are not frontal areas. Icing simply doesnât form on top of a wing when in flight apart from some flowback from the leading edge.
1 Like
That was my assumption. I have no clue as to the performance impact simulation, and how accurate that is/was. But the visual accretion of ice seemed to happen at the same rate all of the time. Just the slightest touch, and it would begin to ice over. If that visual effect was what they are referring to as being overdone by a factor of 15, I can well believe it.
In any case, I plan to give it a bash this evening. Iâm sure I also read that they had reworked the ice decay when outside of icing conditions. I found the ice would decay, eventually, but it would take quite a while to do so.
Something else I was thinking about regarding my icing encounters outside of icing conditions, might be that the visibility was actually below 1600 m but since visibility in MSFS does not go that low + the ATIS always reports 3 mile visibility there is no way of knowing.
Last time I checked (which is a while ago) it was still this layer of frost building up everywhere also to non-frontal surfaces.
I remember some of you writing that the side windows icing over in flight was unrealistic, and an effect you might only see on the ground if the plane had been left overnight in freezing fog?
Side windows, and the windshield seemed to accumulate ice at the same rate pre-SU4.
Not only is it unrealistic for those non-frontal surfaces like cockpit side and cabin windows to pick-up ice, also turning on windshield heat (for aircraft having such system installed) will de-ice the cockpit side and cabin windows, the windshield heating should not affect those windows obviously. I know this was (is?) the case on the TBM for sure.
1 Like
Well, the icing nerf has happened thanks to a very vocal bunch and let me say I am very disappointed.
What we had before people keep referring to as âsevereâ. We have never had anything approaching severe icing in sim. What we had before was moderate with moderate catch rates. Post-nerf the catch rate weâre seeing is light at best and accumulation is still only moderate at worst.
In many thousand hours of real world IFR/icing time I can tell you that a windshield icing over in a minute or less is completely normal. Worst case, a windshield will ice over to the point of being opaque in under 5 seconds. In fact, a windshield getting covered over can be one of the first things to happen when flying through moisture-laden clouds.
Icing catch rates can also be extreme. If you consider what we had before to be âsevereâ, then let me tell you about the time I accumulated over 4 solid inches of ice on a medium sized twin turboprop in under a minute. That, my sim friends, is severe icing.
Now letâs talk about what the various levels of icing mean. Someone earlier said there are 3 rates of icing accumulation. Not true. There are, in fact, four. Letâs compare these to the sim
-
Trace - no, or very little, adverse affects to aircraft performance. Very little will show up on the wings but things like windshield wipers and the windshield itself can still collect enough to notice
-
Light - performance is very minimally affected. Catch rates are slow enough that you donât have to be super proactive with the de-ice but donât get complacent. You can blow boots once in a while or turn on the windshield heat now and again but itâs not needed full time (ignoring the fact that itâs recommended IRL but thatâs not the subject). This is the catch rate we have now since the nerf
-
Moderate - icing accumulation and catch rate is barely matched by the de/anti-ice systems on board the aircraft. You want your de-ice stuff on full time and you hope it doesnât get worse. Catch rates are quick and accumulation can be moderately heavy. Aircraft performance is affected but the safety of the flight is not necessarily. This is the maximum icing accumulation we have in the sim right now. At maximum icing levels (set to 100% in dev mode), planes like the Baron, King Air, and TBM all continue to fly, albeit with a bit of a performance hit
-
Severe. Accumulation and catch rates exceed (sometimes by a great amount) the capabilities of the de-ice equipment onboard the aircraft. Performance is affected anywhere between moderately and to the point of making the aircraft unflyable/uncontrollable. This is a bad situation that no one flies into. With a very few specific exceptions, virtually no certified aircraft are rated to fly into severe icing conditions. Calling what we have in the sim âsevereâ is an insult to what severe icing actually is and can be capable of.
Was icing in the sim perfect before? No, it certainly was not. Ice building up on the sides of windows, further back on the wing, etc needs some work. But thatâs not the point.
However, all of this is just to get it off my chest as I know the vocal majority felt that the icing effects were far overdone. What I would love to see is an option to have a slider/selector for ice severity in sim. Keep this new nerf and call it âeasyâ mode. Keep the old config and call it âmediumâ. And add a new one that actually makes ice have a potentially severe effect and call it ârealâ.
Source: commercial pilot with many thousand hoursâ experience flying into icing conditions over the Rocky Mountains.
8 Likes
You ought to add to your forum profile that you are a commercial pilot. It tends to carry some weight here.
I just did that. Thank you for the suggestion
1 Like
Trouble is that almost all icing before was severe by the very definition you gave. Ice accumulation and catch rates would exceed the de-ice capabilities of many planes. It was overdone in the sense that there was no trace or light icing, and very few instances of moderate icing. Not to mention the severe icing without visible moisture, or the severe icing when passing through a wisp of a cloud.
We all want realistic icing, not extreme icing all the time.
2 Likes
Interesting observation. Which ones?
If we wanted to measure this catch rate, what would be the contributing factors that would affect it?
Pre-SU4 you could ice over while sat on the ground in what seemed like a matter of seconds.
So assuming for a moment the sim is modelling this affect on the ground exactly the same as when in flight, Iâm wondering what I would need to adjust in the weather if I wanted to time how long it takes for the windscreen to completely ice over in different configurations.
The weather panel lets you adjust pressure, temperature, aerosol density, precipitation, wind speed, and cloud coverage/altitude. Presumably some of these will have a greater effect than others, presumably temperature, and precipitation.
This whole thread has examples, ranging from the DA-62 to the jetliners. Take your pick.
I was testing the icing in the sim by flying with a Cessna into towering cumulus clouds today, temperature was -6°C. It took 20 minutes until the plane was iced up enough to give up the altitude hold, stall horn came and the plane took a small dive.
So does it mean that the icing is way too nerfed now? Boy will the devs be happy to hear that, since theyâve had the severe icing problem on the roadmap for quite a while, lol.
But I agree with CpMoustache and CristiNeagu. The problem wasnât in the excessive icing per se, but rather that severe icing was the only one that occurred.
The question is - will the sim be able to simulate different icing severity? Like if you whisp through a thin stratocumulus cloud = no icing at all/small icing; when you fly in a cumulonimbus (which is what you can do now in a Cessna, because strong up/downdraft are still nowhere to be seen) or fly through a thick stratus clouds in freezing temps = moderate to strong icing.
âBut I agree with CpMoustache and CristiNeagu. The problem wasnât in the excessive icing per se, but rather that severe icing was the only one that occurred.â
Thatâs not even remotely what I was saying. We did not have and do not have severe icing in-sim. Iâve certainly had catch rates Iâd consider light to moderate in sim. And Iâm not referring to on-ground icing as thatâs a whole different issue
Alright, replace severe with light to moderate then. What I wanted to say is that that was the only type of icing we had in the sim. Right now itâs way too nerfed and I donât know if the capabilities of the simulator are enough to be modelling different icing conditions severity depending for example on the temperature, humidity etc.
The developers definitely wonât be happy though, lol.