Make turbulence close to real life as possible

Hi guys,

I dont think that Asobo uses Data from Meteoblue or an another provider. To provide MSFS Data about the intensity Turbulence,thunderstorms or rainfall. I would like to see that Asobo uses Data sets for that what i wrote above. And also it should not be limited and how i wrote, close to realife as possible. Asobo please work together with meteorologist. And dont use only the data of them. i think when you have meterologist in your team and listen to them. The Weather will become close to the real thing and get dont limited. And please insert a option to choose the intensity of the turbolences. So can a user which dont want turbolences set it to the off position or to the lesser real position. So are the people which sayd the turbolences are to strong can change to here oppinion the intensity of them.
Also i would like to see some natural phenomens like micro bursts or rain bomb.


Short answer: Yes.

In real life “turbolences” could rip your aircraft apart. That’s why pilots avoid where possible.

To understand the difference between real turbulence and the ones in FS2020 you should book a flight at your local airport and observe what your pilot does with rudder/elevator/aileron to keep the bird flying more or less straight.
In the sim you’ll lack the sensation of physical look and feel of course but you have to experience the real thing first to judge the differences.
Based on my own experience MS/Asobo delivered a pretty good simulator in terms of flight characteristics.
Have fun up there :small_airplane:


It is overly exaggerated. I’ve flown in turbulence of all kinds and all different aircraft. It needs dialed down.


A question from another non-pilot. If it is overly represented in the sim, does this re-enforce negative learning? Or does it improve your flying skills, being able to deal with situations you wouldn’t normally see?

I think its a bit to Strong the effect on the Airplane. as a example look at the pictures below:

my route goes straight and the Airplane swaing from left and right like crazy.

and 15 secounds later:

Never has an airplane been ripped apart by turbulence. I would like to see one for educational purposes.

1 Like

" Sadly, human error and turbulence together can lead to fatalities. In 1966, a Boeing 707 was brought down by turbulence when the pilot had diverted from his planned flight path out of Tokyo to show his passengers Mount Fuji. The 140 mph wind off the mountain ripped the tail to pieces and the aircraft crashed, killing everyone aboard."

The investigation into the crash found the aircraft was trailing white vapour as it left Tokyo, then suddenly began losing altitude and parts of the aircraft began to break away.
Finally over Tarobo at an altitude of approximately 2000m, the fuselage came apart.

It is thought the pilot may have been trying to give his passengers a good view of Mount Fuji when he suddenly encountered abnormally severe turbulence, which caused the aircraft to break up.

1 Like

I remember this from school. I thought it was the Hydraulics that ruptured and took out the empennage not turbulence and the pilot had zero control for 45mins while trying to correct and flew in to a mountain.

Absolutely. You should take some flight lessons in unstable or moderately windy weather. Will make you sick if you are not used to it. As a matter of fact, I think FSXX is still too tame compared to real life.

In real life, flying into a thunderstorm with a GA aircraft = certain death due to loss of orientation and hail.

In real life, we get wind shears and turbulence that causes the autopilot to disengage.

Also in real life, especially in light aircraft, during turbulent conditions, we constantly work our controls to counteract it. That’s not possible in the sim because of lack of sensory feedback. This would require full motion and highly precise force feedback flight controls on all 3 axis.


Terrible in VR indeed…makes me fell sick !

When I learned to fly I was - at first - shocked at just how bad turbulence can be. Event thermals, when landing on a hot day, can (and have) caused a “go around.”

The rule of thumb I learned (and still follow) is Terrain Height X 1.5 to avoid getting badly bounced around below 12,000 feet MSL. Above that everybody in the A/C needs oxygen anyway, which is something I’ve rarely used.

1 Like

Really? That is weird but I guess you must fly some place or at times when there are no thermals. But then you give no details and just saying it is all overdone in in no way accurate.

Like any critique, the details are important otherwise the discussion is fairly pointless.

I’ve only flown two light aircraft and turbulence is fine in strength and effects on light aircraft when flying in summer with lots of thermals. It is something I experienced frequently. Not being able to read the fuel gauges well because they swing around by 50 degrees due to the bouncing is a regular on my summer navs.

There are issues but they are nothing to do with simply “being too strong”:

  1. It is too prevalent. Just because winds are above 1knot doesn’t mean there is turbulence.
  2. There seems to be no mixing of the air as it rises so “thermals” don’t lose strength as the aircraft ascends.
  3. I’m not sure thermals are implemented at all. Turbulence is tied to wind speed and/or cloud coverage which is awful. Well, cloud coverage is ok but it seems way over done. Not every cloud has the effect of a TCU.
  4. The turbulence is severely underdone in storms. Asobo says this is intentional because it seems people don’t believe aircraft can be destroyed by storms. Kind of weird given that even airlines have been destroyed in them let alone much smaller aircraft…

Issue 1 to 3 may be why some think they are too “strong”. But the solution is not simply “turning them down”. This is a simulator so it should “simulate”. I expect MSFS to be no worse than X-Plane in that regard but it has some catching up to do here.

1 Like

This just happened to me over Japan, autopilot was on and I wasn’t making any inputs:

Bare in mind that commercial flights tend to avoid turbulence because any time they fly through it the passengers cell phone clips go viral on YouTube. In terms of real world experience you are unlikely to encounter it in training except possibly doing crosswinds as again instructors avoid it, nor is a turbulent windy day one where most people go flying for fun.

This clip is sort of typical of a badly turbulent day in a light plane (jabiru):



This one lost a wing … Five people died.


I was speaking in generality of the topic and my experience as I said says it all. The intensity for turbulence is overly done. Moderate chop, or even moderate turbulence shouldn’t cause an autopilot to disengage. Crossing over a cold front in the sim is like crossing over a hurricane. Yes the wind shifts look pretty accurate, but the shaking and attitude control loss is way too much, even for the airliners. It all looks artificial and too much “game” like. If this happened in the real world, as it currently is being implemented, flight attendants would need football helmets or would never have the courage to serve your coke and pretzels.

1 Like

I have 2 stripes on my shoulder FME. I’ll take your word and look in to it more. I got to say I have never in 25yrs seen a plane ripped apart by turbulence. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I have never seen it. I have been pelted by hail that rendered my 747 type cert to CATIII Autoland until TBO. I also have an A&P GROL FCC Class III and have installed, repaired, and troubleshot avionics for 25yrs. From 152’s to 747’s and all autopilots are different. Most can and will handle turbulence and will disconnect depending on servo brand and type. Like a C130 flying in a hurricane ap will hold heading and ALT.

1 Like

That’s true. One AP may react differently than the other. But it just seems turbulence is being painted with a broad brush in this sim, and it feels artificial and overly exaggerated in some ways. I almost would rather fly without it simply because it’s just so unrealistic at times. Simple flights over fronts shouldn’t cause basic airmanship problems. Sure flying into buildups is bad and expect a bad ride. But it’s just so generalized and broad, that’s what is making it look wrong and gamey. Constantly watching your attitude indicator dance around for 1-2 knot change.