Yup, agree. Though it wasn’t a crosswind. But I basically had to slew to the runway because it was impossible to taxi as well haha. I do wish it wasn’t possible to fly a 172 through a CB. There should be consequence to doing something like that.
2 Likes
Yeap I do wish the same 100%, it was planned since a while but it didn’t come however I defintely believe that it will come and challenge everybody who has “realistic” mode checked which is supposed to make a big difference between modes/options.
The devs are aware about it, this is why I shared the videos to show what they did say but it is so far impossible to understand why they think that it is implemented because hey it’s not yet at all!
That brought a lot of recent confusions among us…
We wait for fixes or else, hopefully before SU13…
If the ground winds are reported 40knts, IRL you wouldn’t take any GA aircraft out the hanger or undo it’s tie-downs. It might not be a cross wind for the take off, but it will be at some other point on the taxi.
So yes, a 40kt ground wind will toss you around in the SIM, but that’s not the issue in this thread. What the op and others is correctly pointing out is the lack of serious wind shear and gusts/turbulence, hail non cosmetic icing etc etc associated with CB and other weather hazardous to aviation. We don’t even really get CB in the SIM live weather engine anymore.
5 Likes
You sure you don’t have some other flying aids and/or legacy flight model enabled? Because on realistic, with everything off, you can’t keep the stock 172 in a straight line once there’s some medium-strength crosswind. Or you’re flying over changing terrain. Or you’re encountering thermals. Or any weather that reeks of turbulence.
I think what he’s suggesting is the updrafts under clouds still need work. He’s probably right. I haven’t tested myself, but Jorg and Seb covered this pretty extensively in the last Q&A, he has the ability to turn on tools in dev mode to view the updrafts and see what’s happening. So there’s not much need to complain about it before that’s been done. I haven’t seen any actual data to support this or that from any of the posts above, other than I shouldn’t fly a GA plane in 40 knot winds. Personally, I don’t like to fly when they’re above 8. No fun. As Seb said, the updraft “arrows” are only showing the Z (up component), they don’t show the lateral component of the winds as modeled.
I have zero idea how Xplane is modeling weather.
MSFS uses a combination of real time weather simulator data (like used for weather reporting), along with METAR data, “averaged” depending on where it’s being used. Anyone can check out what MeteoBlue does at their website. Granted, there’s some processing going on to get the data to MSFS, and they are still hard at work on getting the system working the way they want. It’s well worth listening to the various Developer Q&A’s to understand their intent, what they’ve done so far, and what their intent is. Directions have changed over time based on feedback from the community.
1 Like
Pretty sure the guys at Laminar Research don’t know how they’re dealing with weather simulation, either. 
Simulating local weather in the smallest scale, with proper air movement and turbulence, is one hell of a task for your average home computer. Getting things ‘right’ is probably too unfair an expectation, when even professional simulators don’t manage much more than making turbulence feel ‘authentic’. It’ always going to be more of an approximation. And I’m glad they tone it down for the sake of accessibility, rather than go overboard.
1 Like
Nope. Disagree. ActiveSky in XP12 is astounding. Bring it on, I say.
You’ll be happy you can tone it down in MSFS. Not for me though.
Glad to hear that there is something in XP12 that is astounding.
Only kidding YearlingDeer and just having a bit of banter here. Couldn’t resist 
Back to FS20. Asobo’s treatment of turbulence has I think been fairly contentious to some of us. For me, honestly, it seemed OTT but there again I am not a RL pilot (only an XP11 veteran 
) so I could be talking absolute rubbish here. I think it’s great though that Asobo have given us 3 options so most of us are happy. At least now I can fly with minimal turbulence and consider myself an A1 pilot 
Regarding Active Sky in FS20. That would be great wouldn’t it? Unfortunately Asobo will have to fully open up the ‘weather’ in the sim for it to be any good. Maybe one day …
3 Likes
Hello everybody, I’m just quoting this from the wishlist thread, because it will come down to this, the ‘‘20km big CFD’’, which was in research a year ago and is (hopefully) currently advancing in development, but so far no further information :
2 Likes
It would be great to have Seb fly the 172 into a thunderstorm with the realistic, max turbulence setting.
Then, reset the flight and try it with turbulence on the lowest setting.
Should go from mild to wild depending on which setting is chosen.
It would also be great If there was an “active” Live Weather status check- send a request to the server to see what the status is, get a message back describing what we should be seeing at current location and altitude.
2 Likes
Well I do fly and I get to go in a Citation regularly and I can assure you that in my sim with realistic turbulence set I get nothing even close. I am curious what happened to all the CB that were shown in videos from MS and even in game images as they all seem to be gone. Wind is okay but the bumps in t he clouds are barely there even in a Cessna 173. Trying flying today anywhere near the Memphis and there is a line of Thunderstorms that top out at 450000 feet and it runs almost the entire width of the US, very impressive. It shows in the map screen but when you fly its nothing like a CB and the tops are around 20K. If its a setting I am missing I would love to know but I suspect its just not that accurate anymore.
5 Likes
I’m confused. You’re quoting from a dev qa from nearly a year ago. Why not discuss what he showed in the last dev qa?
I mean, it still may not be what you’re looking for, but quite a lot was done for SU12 to ameliorate the issues with the first iteration from SU11/40th anniversary release. And he discussed what’s coming.
Seems rather empty to just complain using information from nearly a year ago. I think there’s a lot to discuss about what was just done and what he’s recently said.
Because in the dev Q&A from a year ago they talked about the 20km CFD simulation, which is basically the answer to what the OP is asking.
1 Like
Well, in the last one, he discussed their steps toward that. Really, let’s discuss that, what’s good and bad. A year ago doesn’t matter except to talk about what they have and haven’t done about it in regard to what he just showed.
Again. He said a lot just now, let’s discuss that.
I have to go back and watch it again, but my memory says he talked a lot about everything you’re complaining about, and they’ve made progress towards it. I’m interested in the difference between what he’s said and people’s perceptions of that and the differences, technically, from what he says and the reality. Their reality anyway. In both what is now, and what he says about what will be, and what we’d like to see.
Of course I can do that too,
What’s good:
- removal of up & down draft limitations
- partially improved thermal simulation
- added turbulence option (low, medium, realistic)
What’s bad:
- thermals need more improvements (height, cloud alignment, too strong ‘‘heat thermals’’… )
- no cloud turbulence
- 20km CFD still missing and everything that should come with it
2 Likes
When you say no cloud turbulence, what do you mean?
Again, I haven’t extensively tested turbulence yet, before or after SU12. I can only go by what he says. He says they’ve adjusted turbulence to be under clouds and stop just above clouds. Is that not true?
Or are you saying something different?
What is your expectation? Letting go of the concept of extreme weather which I imagine they’re not going for; yet, anyway.
(Sorry, my typing is bad because I’m experiencing some decent turbulence on a flight to Florida right now, despite blue skies around me at 36,000 ft, lol. Gosh, I hate auto fill)
And I should ask, what did he say about 20km weather in the last one? I forget.
When you fly into let’s say a thunder storm cloud, you will get no tubrulence.
There are only updrafts, sometimes alligned with the cloud, sometimes not.
The missing downdrafts will get added with the 20km CFD.
Just take a look at the post you said which doesn’t matter, there is everything linked and explained what he said.
Ok, let me ask again. Let’s not act like they haven’t discussed all of this over the last year. Seb talked for a huge amount of time about turbulence, what they did before, how they’ve added to it in SU12, and some of what they’re planning to do just last week. Development isn’t instantaneous.
The topic of this thread asks “turbulence and thermals: Is it a joke?”
So, I’m asking, have they done what they said they’ve done, or not?
They haven’t said they’re finished, so expecting that is a joke.
Granted, we’re using a half finished product here, not even half finished. But, it’s still fun as is. Complaining it’s not done is dumb. But discussing what is and what could be better is worthwhile and interesting.
I realize we live in a world of hot takes, which is super sad, but, you haven’t answered my questions. We all know it’s not done yet. That’s not news (Just like NECN brought back some story about Mac calling folks at Alabama last year for help and Bill was angry, as if that’s new news or something. Who cares? That’s super old news). I’m gonna go watch the video again in this regard and answer my own questions, and hopefully get a chance to do some testing compared to my own experience, and I’ll be back.
In the prior Development Q/A (before SU12) they said the new thermal effects and UI will result in unlimited turbulence and cloud turbulence! It also seems to me the Seb is under the impression that the real weather clouds do produce turbulence after SU12 release (watching the latest Development Q/A). I have not experienced any cloud related turbulence since the Beta release of SU12. Flown through many major tall (CB) clouds associated with live weather and absolutely no turbulence (mind you I spend at least 30 hours a week flight simming, jetliners). Sometimes I get minor updraft related turbulence in the clouds but I am willing to bet that has nothing to do with the cloud itself! So to answer your question: Yes, they did say there will be significant turbulence in clouds! And no they did not deliver! There isn’t any in the live weather produced clouds! What makes me worried is for Seb to think that this issue is addressed!
1 Like
As @HomieFFM quoted about what was said one year ago, I did too.
as it is mentioned in the thread we also talk about what was recently said in the very last Q&A for one single reason that should answer to your questions 
-
Still any single turbulence associated to the clouds (which was promised clearly a while ago) and which is still such a major missing feature despite what was shown in the last Q&A… On the contrary, there’s no severe turb in big cells as it’s supposed to be hence because of it, it affects all the types of clouds and the weather in bad/severe conditions in terms of dangerous turbulence that should happen. This is the reason why we won’t need to avoid TS or CB which do not include any danger at all as it was showns by Seb’s demonstration.
-
As previoulsy mentionned and quoted from the last Q&A Seb shows severe and dangerous turbulence in CB with visual and drastic effect/impacts on the envelop of the C172 but what he really forgot to mention is that the video was done with a preset weather so it’s totally out of his own topic!!! (you can easily imagine the strong expectation after that SU12 was released!) because it’s definitely not implemented in the Live Weather and worst than that: no matter if “Realisitc Mode” is checked it doesn’t change a thing, no turbulence in clouds and of course no unlimitted up/downdraft as it was shown in the video!!!
So that, as you can notice we also talk about what happens currently based on the very last Q&A which is linked to what was said months and months ago, even what was asked in previous Q&A!
At the end of the day it is just false as a matter of fact and we still have any feedback from the Devs! It’s like an infinite circle, questions are raised sometimes in Q&A then we have vague answers or even better: a real demonstration in live showing that up/downdraft winds are finally unlocked (illimited) which is false as well in Live Weather! … strong turbulence in CB/TS which could make the light bird unflyable (as it occures in RL) do not exist in Live Weather too!
So we watch the Q&A with a smile and joy on the lips and when we do test it well nothing happen at all! So… If somebody here can send a video with turbulence in CB (only in Live Weather, no preset!) based on the last Q&A then he’ll be a magician … but in reality it’s not going to work!
The big time mystery to me is why Seb shows somehting that we expect so badly since the advertising videos and much more after SU12 that this still doesn’t exist in “Realistic Mode”, in Live Weather neither!???
It just doesn’t make sense… It will be great to have a moderator who could really ask solid questions and not saying " well, great, fantastic, good job" … okay but based on vacum devoid of matter?
Weird, isn’t it? 
5 Likes