Realistic Dangerous Weather - Physics Simulation

They also has some data for clear air turbulence if they want add that as well. More data than sigmet but maybe less accurate where it’s happening in real life.


SIGMETs will be less accurate with boundaries, they have to be generous for safety’s sake. Whereas your link has much more defined boundaries for the various intensities.

The CAT map you’ve linked is exactly what we need! I hope they use that instead of the SIGMETs for CAT and implement full world coverage for all three intensities shown!

Edit: It’s even better than I thought! The CAT map is pressure altitude specific with 50mb increments! It would be amazing if they used that as their data source for clear air turbulence.


It’s even more detailed if we zoom in. But i agree it has much more data in many different altitudes. I also hope for that instead of sigmet :slight_smile: Would be awesome and we would be able to plan our flights around those turbulence. Would make the planning much more important than it is now. Now we don’t need to plan to avoid turbulence because it doesn’t exist. Because it has data for different altitudes we would be able to climb or descend to get out of the turbulence too. Thats how it’s avoided in real life.


From the Q&A:


  • problem was when you were at a big TCU it was removing all bumps, because you were always at the limit of 2000fpm
  • we completely removed any limit for vertical wind, so it can get as high as the real world thermals
  • the highest I recorded was over 9000fpm, which is a lot
  • so globally integrating all these fixes further increased turbulence

I think this is all just a general thermal improvement and has nothing to do with realistic dangerous weather simulation.

Even the removement of the up/down draft limitations is a very good step in the right direction, there wont be any realistic loss of control with SU12 and no need to avoid any cloud/weather with any aircraft. No need to plan a flight and checking the weather situation.

Setting the turbulence option to realistic will result in a little bit more aircraft shaking, at least that’s how it looks right now and that’s sadly everything about it.


Agree. But they have stated the report of no cloudturbulence as bug logged in su12 beta. Hope that means we may get some
turbulence inside clouds before su12 releases

1 Like

can you link that post?


Why I’m saying this is probably just a thermal improvement update,

when you take a look at the showcase from the Q&A, he is using realistic and thunderstorm preset, creating a ‘‘high turbulence environment’’ and the plane is shaking just a little bit…

In that case the small cessna should be all over the place, but it looks like it’s just reacting to the updrafts created by the buildings below, there is no hint of realistic turbulence:


That is true. I hope we can expect to have some turbulence in the near future though. I’m looking forward to the moment when we actually can feel that we are inside clouds. The difference between the more smooth/stable air above clouds and descending through those clouds that has more unstable air. Or the moment when we see a thunderstorm building up in front of us and we need to check the radar to plan a route around it to avoid the danger or go right into it and get learned how the real weather works instead of sightseing tours inside those dangerous clouds. Now we have option to turn the danger off and that means those that wants make a trip inside those dangerous clouds has the option to do that as well.


Sad thing is that realistic weather simulation with turbulence were advertised before release of this sim.

Acording to me, flight model, weather and another important things for the flight sim, should be a priority and only then I would care about world updates and DLCs and so on.


Yes… I even made it into a Q&A last year asking exactly that: Why is almost everything they advertised at the release of the sim, actually not in the sim? Their answer was pretty much ‘‘it’s in the sim’’ and ignoring everything I asked specifically…

Here is the post with the Q&A answer:


Looking at how CFD aircraft behaves during the weather phenomena makes me think that their CFD is a bunch of BS.


It’s sad that this is not being acknowledged thoroughly by Asobo! Clouds without turbulence are pretty much as unrealistic as a Flight Simulator can get!


They are not going to admit it publicly but the truth is, that MSFS was advertised as the most realistic simulator to date which was not completely true. I was so hyped about MSFS but when I heard that flight model is based on FSX code, I started to suspect that something is wrong.

Lot of things were missing on release and it felt like an arcade where you could fly inverted with one engine off with baron.

On the other hand, I never ever seen weather visual presentation like it is in the MSFS in any other sim. Also the mechanical turbulence due to the objects like building and trees is there and it feels alright and very much alive…

But dangerous weather physics is a fundamental thing for a flight sim because flight simming is not only about sightseeing and tons of buttons which you need to press, it also need to be a challenge for virtual pilots.

If they are afraid that people would not understand what is going on when their tiny Cessna 172 is tossed like a toy inside the CB they could just implement options for severity of weather.


Technically these options are already there in the 12th Beta but it’s debatable whether tinkering with the turbulence realism selector changes anything.


This feature discovery series stuff from 3 years ago, let’s go through it point by point…

Feature Discovery Series Episode 3: Aerodynamics - YouTube

  1. volumetric clouds match turbulence, up & down drafts:

    • that’s what we get now in Sim update 12 (maybe, if they manage to make it actually work, because in the beta it doesn’t)
    • but still no where near actual real life turbulence
  2. native support of storms, supercells, TCU…

    • Storms and TCU’s are completely soft and unrealistic
    • Supercell? Not in the sim…
  3. Toweringcumulus Clouds ‘‘updraft on the side, in the middle it goes down… that’s why they are so dangerous and you should never get close to them in a small aircraft, in a big aircraft you get lots of turbulence’’

    • watch my Cessna 172 go straight through your Toweringcumulus Cloud while laughing in the middle, because nothing goes down there…
  4. the airflow in the world is going to match the clouds, the air is going to move up and down inside the clouds, on the edges of clouds you get wind shear

    • the clouds doesn’t have edges because of the low density visualisation up close
    • wind shear? Not in the sim…
  5. ‘‘we have all the up & down drafts which match the actual weather’’

    • No, besides slightly stormy weather they doesn’t match anywhere
    • severe up & down drafts in a big storm doesn’t exist, that little bit of shaking is not what’s happening in real life
    • up & down drafts in a hurricane can’t exist, because hurricanes doesn’t exist in the sim

Beyond the setting for turbulence in the SU12 beta of realistic/med/low there should be more settings we can play with, like Active Sky got right after 15 years, such as Enhanced Turbulence, Random turbulence, turbulence in clouds, adjust of up and downdraft rates. If MSFS checked out AS and provided something similar, job done (also with the missing wxr radar)

We all have different planes and setups, some pistons, some airlines, some VR, some motion platform, so we all need to be able to tweak and not be subject to a generic setting for all


I’m fine with having as many options as possible,
as long as one of them is called ‘‘realistic’’ and tries to achieve exactly that.


I agree 200% !!!
I flew in a CAT3 Cyclone today (off NewCaledonia), My plane was crabbing, yes, but nothing more…


So this thread has not been yet noticed by Asobo? Because I dont see it mentioned in the list in the last development update.