Is realistic dangerous weather simulation possible thanks to new features like the turbulence setting?

Will it be possible in the future to simulate realistic ‘‘out of control’’ behavior while flying through certain clouds and weather situations?

In SU12 it was planned to have turbulence near and inside the clouds and with the removal of up and down draft limits this should result in realistic dangerous weather.

But it looks like this is nowhere near the case, everything the aircraft does is shake a little bit, while in reality, specially small aircraft should get much more out of control / can’t stay airborn in certain situations.

Are there any future plans about this ‘‘under investigation’’ topic? :slight_smile:

Interesting. I don’t use the beta, but a few sim updates ago (October ‘22 I think) a lot of GA pilots were saying the weather effects on small aircraft were too severe. Tbh, I thought they were about right most of the time, certainly compared with my RW PA28 experience, but they dumbed it down quite a bit.


That’s why they introduced the turbulence setting, where you can flatline or reduce any shaking of the aircraft.

What I mean with this question (which is also a seperate wishlist topic) is if there are any plans to simulate the ‘‘completely out of control’’ scenario, that you would experience in a really bad weather situations (big cumulonimbus cloud, severe storm and so on).

Because this aspect is still completely missing and it would add much more realism and fun into the game.


Realism? Any GA pilot who flies into violent thunderstorms is a terrible pilot.
Fun? Maybe if you’re a masochist.

What do you expect to learn from having your plane swatted out of the sky.

To each his own I guess, but I would venture to say that 90 out of a 100 of those flying this sim would never have a need for code that encourages such unrealistic (i.e. risky and foolish) behavior.

This isn’t GTA5.

1 Like

Good point. Any pilot that crashes their plane is a terrible pilot; let’s get rid of crash detection too.

Let’s get rid of the G effect as well, any pilot that pulls enough Gs to black themselves out is a terrible pilot, and doesn’t belong in a simulator like this.



Yes that’s why you circle around them, check the weather before you start the flight…
Oh wait there is no need for that in MSFS, non of the ‘‘terrible pilots’’ will ever know, because it’s not simulated. Let’s fly thorugh everything like a train with wings :man_shrugging:

This topic is in the top 50 wishlist, but maybe you have some sort of high power knowledge what people want.

Funny you say that, because the absence of ‘‘realistic dangerous weather physics’’ is pretty much GTA V like.


The thing is that someone who has a certain experience in aviation knows himself if and when he (or she) messed the flight, landing etc up. I personally don‘t need any unrealistic and buggy crash detection to tell me that I crashed although it might just have been a hard landing. Or an invisible wall by a scenery designer or what ever. But that‘s why crash detection CAN be turned off. Same with engine stress, there are addons that don‘t like sim settings and functions like that.

Last night I flew across NZ‘s north island and I was constantly lifted up by thermals. Nothing was exaggerated but I lost all the fun because I had to constantly watch my VSI for something I would feel in a real plane. Eventually I closed the flight because it became so frustrating, I couldn‘t enjoy the flight anymore just staring at the VSI all the time.

Adding more and more realism sounds good, sure, but it‘s always a matter of sensibility and usability. What purpose do we sim pilots have from thermals except when we want to fly gliders? All the realism becomes pointless as soon as it requires feel of pants and the stomach to be realistic. We‘re sitting at a PC, we need to stay sensible.

Good, so we agree it’s an individual choice regarding what the settings should be. And I think everyone agrees with this.

I agree with OP; I would like thunderstorms to be even deadlier and with more realistic updrafts and downdrafts. I would like to actually be cautious and wary of deadly weather, and be forced to take preventative measures.

Of course, with no such severe weather, I could either:
A) Take preventative measures to avoid Towering Cumulus clouds based on visual cues, knowing deep down that it’s meaningless (which takes the fun out of it)
B) Be lazy and cut through a Towering Cumulus cloud because I know it’s not going to do any harm - and consequently breed bad habits when I go flying IRL.

And regarding what purpose a thermal serves to sim pilots if we’re not flying gliders…I’ve flown 152s on sunny summer days, I’ve flown Piper Seminoles on instrument approaches in IMC and on sunny summer days. And let me tell you, flying instrument approaches on a summer day is far more challenging than flying it in pure IMC. Maintaining aircraft control is generally difficult in thermals because of the convective unevenness, and I want to “keep my reactive muscles trained”. If I wanted to fly on rails, I’d go back to FSX or P3D.


Why are people discussing “thunderstorms” when they don’t exist in Live Weather?
There will never be a situation for flying into a thunderstorm until there are thunderstorms in the sim.

I get what you mean. But who delivers real data about what would potentially happen to your plane within a TS? How much hard data is there available? Below the line it would be guesswork. Just add a 50m/s climb rate into these kind of clouds and done.

The fun thing is. a friend of mine happened to had to fly through a thunderstorm off the coast of east Africa several years ago. It wasn’t bad piloting, just something they had to do there and a lot of bad luck. They ended up surrounded by towering CB and there was no other way than go through them. They turned the battery off, fastened their seat belts and hoped for the best… It was a twin turbo prop, high wing, 12000lbs aircraft. The engines at idle, nose down they were lifted up several thousand feet in completely calm air he told me. No shaking, rattling, nothing. It was like an elevator in a large skyscraper. The aircraft and crew was fine, nothing happened.

It can go totally different. There are crash reports when aircraft were flipped over… All that is a guessing game, there is no way to sensibly calculate the behaviour of such a cloud. I’d always suggest to pretend and fly around them. I don’t fly the sim’s C172 with a firewalled throttle either although I know nothing would happen. That’s was “simulation” is about. It’s all about pretending a real situation while drinking a beer and chatting with the wife.

Love how people have been “talking” about the lack of quality and accuracy of the weather and still feel the need to request MORE additional features. Let’s first get things working right BEFORE we start throwing on a bunch of feature requests. This is why everything is moving so slowly. Everyone wants a thousand things added while at the same time it’s basic core function still needs to be fixed…FIRST.

I consider a dangerous weather simulation as a core feature, it’s linked to the core features: up & down draft, thermals, gusts, turbulence - which do need work,

but it’s still a legit question to ask if they gonna try to physically simulate cumulonimbus clouds, thunderstorms and so on. Specially since they introduce a tubulence option which can turn everything off, so people can still have an arcade flight if they want.


It’s all above the constant pattern of throwing something in that’s completely exaggerated and then taking 2-3 sim updates to tweak it back down to an actual usable level. That’s taking so much time.

I can’t believe the moderators haven’t banned all postings about the “T” word. It’s more controversial and inflaming than religion or politics!


Turbulence? :wind_face: :smile:

Only if people can‘t discuss on a civilized level. Often they seem personally hurt if others don‘t agree and then it derails. It‘s interesting to read forums from around 2000. The tone was totally different. Using the internet was expensive, minutes had to be productive :smiley:

1 Like

There are some real life numbers which can be used, they wont achieve 100% realism which is impossible, but I’m asking if they gonna try to go in this direction in the future.

That’s a good example against this ‘‘argument’’ :

I think it’s too much cart before the horse going on. The horse isn’t even saddled up yet (getting the foundation of MSFS stable and running, ATC/weather/etc) and we’re already expecting the cart to be places. The reason why so much of the core sim function isn’t getting the attention it needs is because the developers are needing to take time away from that in order to appease people wanting new features which screws up the foundation even more. We either want new features or a stable sim. Smart thing would be to handle one before the other. But because people are impatient and greedy they’re trying to do both, and this is the result of that. 3 years and people still not happy about certain features. If that’s all they had to worry about they would have been fixed long ago IMO.

As a developer/publisher you don’t sell a stable sim but you sell features. The more the better. It has nothing to do with people asking for turbulence or helicopters or whatever, it’s what can be advertised in videos and screenshots. That’s how marketing works, noone can show off the shiney new stability and correct ATC. :man_shrugging: Background improvements come step by step but they bring no income at all. Same with the cloud turbs. They will come, they have been acknowledged. Patience, as hard as it is. Step by step.

1 Like

I’m not asking for a new feature, up & down drafts exist in the sim, I’m basically asking about a possible more realistic strength simulation in storms, cumulus clouds and so on.

Just a simple question and there is nothing wrong with asking that, I don’t know why a few of you starting a philosophical text marathon right here.