CJ4 on 27/12/2021 at around 21:00 UTC RCKW to ZMIN using real weather, with 120kt crosswinds once I crossed into China at FL320.
Twice the CJ4 sounded Master warnings and something in red flashed up on the MFD but too quick to read it.
However Air Hauler 2 recorded both instances, the first was a sudden -1998 VSI causing 87% damage and the second at -1881 VSI causing a further 7% damage. I decided to turn off Live weather at that point.
I use Working Title CJ4 so am reporting this on their Discord too, however I do feel that this is MSFS related and due to bizarre in sim Live weather.
Actually Iāve just noticed something else, AH2 also shows that during those events I landed at two airports, ZSNJ and ZSWZ, both of which were waypoints on my flight plan. (In fact its shows me landing at ZSNJ twice, maybe why so much damage from the first instance)
Therefore I am wondering if the sim ālandedā me at those airports, despite me being at FL320 above them, and that this bug isnt turbulence as such, but more a bug in the flight plan code?
If so this could be tested by adding airports to a flight plan and seeing what happens when you fly over them. Itās late here now, so I shall try this tomorrow)
ZMIN does not seem to be a valid airport identification so I cannot check your exact route.
However I do see at the present time (7.48 AM Zulu Dec 28th)), that there are several large active sigmets over China, for severe icing and severe turbulence, did you check sigmets before flying? If you encountered any of these, that will explain why your flight was unpleasant.
WSCI45 ZHHH 280701
ZHWH SIGMET 4 VALID 280715/281115 ZHHH-
ZHWH WUHAN FIR SEV TURB FCST N OF N29 FL240/400 STNR NC=
WSCI45 ZHHH 280446
ZHWH SIGMET 3 VALID 280525/280925 ZHHH-
ZHWH WUHAN FIR SEV ICE FCST N OF N29 FL040/200 STNR NC=
WSCI35 ZGGG 280620
ZGZU SIGMET 2 VALID 280650/281050 ZGGG-
ZGZU GUANGZHOU FIR SEV ICE FCST N OF N2530 AND E OF E110 FL030/180
STNR NC=
WSCI36 ZUUU 280610
ZPKM SIGMET 3 VALID 280630/281030 ZUUU-
ZPKM KUNMING FIR SEV ICE FCST WI N3317 E10423-N3153 E10931-N2640
E10911-N2526 E10754-N2448 E10416-N3011 E10241-N3317 E10423
FL040/170 STNR NC
Neither the aircraft nor the simulator are at fault here. The two airports ZNSJ and ZSWZ are located East of these ares under Sigmets and could have been affected by these yesterday when you were flying there. I also experienced similar weather last week between RJAA and VHHH, as well as ZSPD to EDDF winds aloft were in excess of 186 knots at FL380 in one case and 125 knots at FL300 over China.
No, I donāt even know what a sigmet is, Iām a fairly new sim pilot, but if one has to be an expert pilot to provide feedback then the sim will descent into elitism.
Knowledge is not elitism, it is the fruit of passion and interest, and necessitates some āworkā, nothing more, nothing less.
When we see the numerous threads about the turbulence being āoverdoneā, and when those āpilotsā denigrate the product (MSFS) without knowing the basis of aerology, it hurts, because it would/may lead Asobo and Microsoft to eliminate this āinconvenienceā and thus deny the reality of flying to those (like me) who have flown in real life. MSFS may not be perfect but the team has the merit to try very hard to reproduce the reality, even it it takes time and numerous improvements ruined by mistakes corrected later.
Sigmet means āsignificant meteorologicalā notices issued to airmen worldwide so that they may be aware of weather events that may endanger their flight. Those notices are the same as the ones I reproduces in my previous message, and are available on NOAA aviation weather worldwide, so one can check what sort of weather will be on the route one is planning. Professional planners will plot their route according to weather, and try to āuseā it to shorten a flight time, for example avoiding major headwinds, and certainly yes severe turbulence areas such as the one I included in my previous message. Icing is also a highly dangerous phenomenon if your airplane is not equipped properly.
To fly an airplane is one thing, but before you become a certified pilot (whatever your level), you do have to learn weather, this is why we fight so much to ensure MSFS gets a full overhaul of its weather engine to make it as realistic as possible. For example, you should not be able to fly inside a cumulonimbus without experiencing terrible and unsafe up and down drafts, and this has yet to be reproduced in MSFS.
I appreciate the real weather realities. It is unfortunate that MSFS does not accurately simulate reality. Cruising at 31,000 ft over the rockies, on autopilot, on a clear day and an A320 does a 180 degree instant role and dives out of control to the ground. There may be sigmets, however, this is not realistic. Setting weather to a clear sky preset and having an A320, at cruise, similar to above do a 90 degree roll and drop thousands of feetā¦again, not realistic.
MSFS is a very nice program but still has significant room for improvement. The weather, in particular, has lots of room for improvement.
Another interesting observation is flying at cruise with a 100 mph cross-wind and the clouds stay behind the planeā¦also not realistic.
Again, excellent program but still lots of room for improvement.
The one time I had an uncontrolled event and crash in an airliner (FBW A320), high above the mountains in Nepal, with strong upper level winds, the developer found a bug in the roll law modeling that was corrected on a subsequent update.
Just a reminder that sometimes plane aerodynamic modeling plays a part, and itās not always just weather.
Yes, I would guess that either the weather modeling has errors in the wind shear and turbulence levels, or the simulated forces on the structure are excessive or the inertia terms (mass, moment of inertia) are too small or ā¦ Hard to pin down. Could be a combination since the clouds do not have the correct cross-wind behavior, either.
Anyhow, hope the developers keeping checking their code. This is a very complex program which certainly will have errors.
I am beginning to think that the excessive turbulence response is a function of the simulation resolution. Going from high resolution to ultra resolution may have reduced the turbulence levels and excessive accelerations.