SU12 Q&A about turbulence and thermal, a joke or not?

Discussion Hub General Discussion
41

just a few thoughts:
Live weather appears to have been ‘gutted’ or ‘greatly altered’ sometime around SU5. Before that time there were actually complaints of too much lightning. Now we have complaints that there are no thunderstorms at all. So why should anyone expect the severe winds and turbulence that are associated with something that no one can see/find in the sim anymore?
Secondly, the new CFD flight model is something that has to be enabled for each plane and then fine tuned for that plane. The reason Seb chooses the default C172 G1000 is because that one plane (along with few others) have the new model enabled. Its up to any third party developer to enable and then fine tune the flight model of their created plane.

So what I see in this thread are complaints from people flying planes that probably don’t have CFD enabled or tuned into dangerous weather that doesnt actually exist anymore.

As a person who flies the C172 G1000 a lot, I can tell you that it does get tossed and pushed around. But if anyone is expecting to see any of the default plane models ripped to shreds due to excessive forces, they can forget it. Maybe third party developers will be allowed to do that but it will be on them to make that flight model work. And there has to be actual thunderstorms in the sim to begin with which there really aren’t. No high overcast in the USA either. No alto cumulus decks. No varying global haze.

2 Likes
42

Not to diminish the arguments here, they’re all valid. But what I think is happening is that everybody is finding out how hard it is to integrate all the realism aspects of aviation in a granular, globally-realistic way. I see lots of great observations throughout the forums of issues that would be easy to fix in a silo, but the interconnectedness of things means a change here messes up something else there.

Aviation, like spaceflight, is hard, complex stuff. Making a realistic weather engine that captures every aspect of that incredibly complex, interconnected subject and merging it with the aesthetical and operational realities/needs of aviation… I’m surprised the devs haven’t run away screaming. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it’s still a work in progress - I can’t possibly believe they’d be satisfied with the lack of turbulence in thunderstorms, or lack of thunderstorms in general, and just think “welp, we finished that, good job!”

4 Likes
43

The presence of CFD in a model isn’t really the issue (aircraft that don’t have it still respond to the simulated movement of air. They just do so via different parameters).

Plenty of aircraft that don’t have it will experience turbulence of the type that is presently modelled in the SIM. If I fly the Kodiak through the mountains on a hot windy gusty day I’ll find all the turbulence I could wish for.

But the source of that lumpy air is different. It’s about what may cause the air to get lumpy and the fact that CB doesn’t.

That’s not to say that different aircraft models won’t respond differently. They clearly do. But it’s not the primary issue. If anything the C172 G1000 will yaw around like a mad thing in rough air because it’s had its cross sectional drag co-efficient (CX) set to over 4 which, the general consensus believes, is an order of magnitude too high!

2 Likes
44

Please could you explain me what does it change to choose the C172 CFD? Of course it helps to get the best advantage of CFD (I did fly the C172 for testing) does it bring the turbulence in clouds as planned based on what was said in the Q&A? Of course not.

By the way I’m not the only one to use only birds that have NPS CFD SBS like the Wilga for instance, (or at least CFD for the planes I fly if they aren’t updated yet with NPS/SBS) but again does it bring unlimited updrafts in CB? of course not.

There are some turbulence in msfs like the ones that occure due to terrain, relief, again I feel that it is really well done but here it concerns turbulence/weather in Clouds about up/downdraft winds, convective and hopefully a better logic in the way that msfs creates thermals!

Also complaining about too many lightings is somehting but still it has nothing to do with the total absence of turbulence when severe weather conditions are around… We have legitimate complaints here, joined to solid arguments I guess :wink:

45

If your complaint is a lack of up or downdrafts in or near clouds then the CFD model does matter. It matters because thats what Asobo is currently working on and to experience what is being worked on, it needs to be enabled in the flight model.
If your complaint is a lack of turbulence then I can’t tell you if there is turbulence or not. How are these things modelled? The pilot perspective is moved about inside a model that moves about in a simulated environment. It is the relative movements of the pilots perspective and the two other environments (plane and outside world) that would provide the illusion of what I would call turbulence.
Maybe its there but it isnt modelled? maybe its modelled but not to your satisfaction? Who knows.
But we really shouldn’t conflate winds with turbulence as they are not exactly the same thing. One is a general flow and the other is chaos caused by resistance to a myriad of air movements (as I see it). But the updrafts and downdrafts do exist and if you can’t find them then you should try the default C172 for a few weeks.

46

Yes. All aircraft will respond in some way to the winds. But Asobo is working on a new CFD model and Seb said that aircraft must have CFD enabled and fine tuned in order to work properly with that model. To me its the difference between the legacy flight model and the ‘modern’ flight model that MSFS was released with. This CFD model is ‘modern part 2’ if you will. Sure planes will react to winds but will it be as Asobo intended? Should a plane designed for the legacy flight model fly the same as one with CFD enabled and fine tuned? Of course not. I don’t think its proper to fly a plane not designed to work with the new system and then complain that it doesnt work correctly. The weather has enough problems without people being deliberately obtuse.

47

That’s because the sim doesn’t do a good job of rendering thunderstorms at all in live weather. everything looks ok at a distance and you can see the lines of weather on the map, but when you get up close everything disapears or turns into clouds that top out at 20k feet or lower like you said. Very unrealistic…it has been like this for years. Not sure they are working on thunderstorms anymore, but maybe one day it will improve.

2 Likes
48

:person_facepalming: Sir I have no idea where you’re going? hh I mean have you read the thread? I even shared the weather chart to make the point of the topic as clear as possible. The idea here is not about being focus on “complaining” or even “CFD”. There’s even no need for a wilkipedia definition of CFD. It’s a very complex subject I guess and I won’t be able to add something smart on top of CFD stuff.

Well you say that you can’t even tell if there’s turbulence or not? I don’t know what you mean by that seriously… Of course it is factual that there is no turbulence in CB! The turbulence based on severe weather conditions are definitely not implemented as it was said in the Q&A, how can I be more clear, no idea lol ! Let’s stay focus on the topic which is about the lack of turbulence in clouds, period! And again there’s no turbulence in clouds, nor in CB, nor in TS (definitly not modelled in Live Weather as it was already mentioned) That’s it! (CFD or not!!!) no need to post that CFD is such an important stuff, because there was turb in clouds before CFD implementation in SU X (I forgot which one)

You’re trying hardly to get back on CFD but it’s not the point, as I said the C172 has already CFD included in its belly, I repeat myself again: the Wilga has NPS CFD SBS (I’m not sure if your read the answers to your post?) again it doesn’t change a thing in terms of turbulence in clouds CFD or not (even if they are still working on CFD, even if we already know that CFD will bring such effects in terms of turbulence!) please read some posts about that specific subject, some of users explain it better than me!

There were some turbulence in clouds at the beginning without CFD (not well done represented for sure) but they removed them because of complaints, same for the icing condition effect/impact on the envelop of the plane that instead of fixing it they removed the feature! So the C172 CFD won’t give you any turbulence in clouds based on severe METAR/TAF!!!

Anyway thank you somehow for explaining that turbulence and winds are two different things, I’m not the only one to get it, 7 years in the sky I wish I’m supposed to know that from my PPL to my CPL :pray: and even if that doesn’t make myself an expert in “météo”… And it’s not the topic to defend a vague idea of what turbulence is, it’s about the total lack of turbulence in severe weather conditions in msfs and the danger that should be represented in the sly! Again flyng a CFd C172 in super dark cells without turbulence is totally unrealisitc!!! Not because of CFD but because CB, clouds are just cosmetic! :wink:

Where are you going by that statement? That makes no sense if you alow me to say it this way without being rude of course, please take your time to read carefully the thread made by @HomieFFM about thermals up/downdrafts (very instructive) you may learn some stuff as I’ve learned about some specifities concerning thermals because I’m not a glider pilot, I’ve just learned years ago the miminim required about thermals during my PPL theory so that thanks for this brillant community to feed my knowledge by the way! …
You’ll see that it is very interesting about learning how it goes in this area, even some simmers know better than “classic pilots” about this matter and you will see that it doesn’t work proprelly at all in msfs as you may think and that it’s not just saying “oh I have thermals in my sim why are you complining guys?” great for you if you are happy with how thermals work in the sim currently, same for users who want to fly in severe weather conditions without any turbulence, or by setting “Low Mode” again it’s not the topic.

Just if you want, enjoy reading that thread and you’ll might review your advice as "But the updrafts and downdrafts do exist you should try the default C172 for a few weeks"
:man_shrugging:

Well did I say that it doesn’t exist, I precisely said how unrealisitc up/downdrafts are represented in specific weather conditions means in CB and else, therefore based on their existence! Again there are many posts about the lack of Up/Downdraft that deserve to be read, just give a try before making any hative statement, no need a C172 scientific experience for a few weeks to notice the big issue. I guess that you’ll easily see that up/downdraft are definitly not unlocked as it was said in Q&A and since years! (again which is a part of the thread/topic here) Maybe you have an opinion about what up/downdrafts winds are which is good for you but it’s not about arguing opinions, it’s about fact!
For the last time I can garantee that there is no unlimitted up/downdrafts and thermals are not modelled as it’s supposed to be, fact! In other words my opinion does not change the reality as it is currently in msfs.

No matter if you’re the only lucky one to have up/downdraft unlocked on your magic sim which I doubt (kidding you) Anyways, you have the link below and afterwards if it’s clear for you and if this thread here makes sense then sounds great, it’s cool!!! :pray: :sunglasses:

Maybe you could add your vote, it will help the community, let us know, tks! :arrow_heading_down:

Thermals, Up & Downdrafts - More Realism Updates - Bug Reports & Wishlist / Wishlist - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums

1 Like
49

I second that! They don’t even mentioned the issue/bug about TS in the last Q&A, on the contrary it seems that they think that it works based on Seb’s demonstration (preset weather, not in Live Weather)! That makes me worried…

50

The title of this thread is rude and condescending. Your assertion that Asobo removed turbulence to satisfy ‘Arcade Pilots’ is also insulting. Has it never occurred to you that they are working on this s***?? Its not complete? Its not done? You say there used to be turbulence? Congratulations! You agree with me. The weather was greatly altered around SU5 and no one has seen thunderstorms since. How do expect to find these severe effects in weather that does not even exist in the sim at the moment?? and how would you expect to expereince what is done if you are not flying a plane that makes use of the CFD flight model? They could implement turbulence and hook it to sim variables that your plane can not even read and you’d still be claiming that everybody but you is some inferior Arcade Pilot.
You’ve brought up everything from turbulence to icing to up and downdrafts claiming that none of these exist. Is it 100% realistic? Even if it were, we would never agree on it… not even you superior real world pilots.
Me? Im hoping for lots of improvements but Im certainly not willing to accuse Asobo of some sort of scam or to flat out call them liars or to call other simmers Arcade Pilots and accuse them of being the reason why missing features are not currently present.
Seriously, would you please try to be less condescending and rude?

1 Like
51

the base game is not meant to be as real as it gets. it all comes down to the game rating being E for everyone. “Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.” real weather can be downright terrifying. cant have that as default. why there is so little done on the subject.

52

Or maybe they are still working on it (the weather) and its legal reasons why they can’t allow plane models to suffer damage (visual).

54

sorry. I didn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about weather or any other topic. It sounded like you were saying that extreme and dangerous weather was deliberately removed for the sake of “E for Everyone”. I don’t think thats true. I think they are working on it and we should definitely talk about issues in as constructive a manner as possible. I apologize for misunderstanding what you wrote.

55

I’ve certainly had some wild rides in Live weather

They know it’s not perfect by a long shot, they’ve admitted as much, and they are working on it.
What’s not to like about that?

57

We have the thermals/updrafts from ground up to the cloudbase that should be laminar flow(predictable). Whats missing is the air that mixes inside clouds that makes the airflow turbulent (unpredictable). Thunderstormclouds for example are dangerous because the high velocity in air that makes the air even more turbulent (unpredictable). The higher velocity (the higher the cloud is) in air the more turbulent flow. Same for the air closer to ground that are affected by the friction layer. Friction creates mixing of air as well. That thing we have simulated by those gusts and terrain that creates those up and downdrafts near ground. Same thing near ground, the higher velocity of airflow the more turbulent flow.

The mixing of air inside clouds we want added :slight_smile:

Also CAT is missing (mixing of air at higher altitudes) More noticable now when they reduced the height of the turbulence caused by mountains

5 Likes
58

I’m just gonna post this again… because that’s what they are working on at least a year now according to the Q&A from a year ago. And this should be the tool to create realistic turbulence higher above the ground, in and around the clouds, thunder storms and so on.

‘‘20km CFD’’

  • 20km big CFD simulation similar to the aircraft CFD, which also goes very high
  • should manage, improve atmospheric airflow
  • improves up/down drafts, wind
  • adds turbulence and vortices
  • connects down drafts with up drafts / airmass combination
  • adds local wind effects you don’t get from live weather

(01:13:27)

4 Likes
59

Thank you for sharing here as well! :wink:

Yeap a year ago they were aware about missing realistic features for the weather, hopefully they will notice that SU12 does not provide any of which was mentioned in the last Q&A. …

Let’s see how it goes and let’s hope! :pray:

3 Likes
60

The question oof “where exactly is this supposed to be computed?” remains, however. Few MSFS users are going to have a second machine dedicated to weather simulation. This stuff requires some serious firepower, especially when you want to simulate down to a level of detail and resolution like single control surfaces on an aircraft.

Not to curb your enthusiasm, but just don’t go out there expecting too much. Your computer probably can’t handle what you want, unless you’re playing on a server rack filled to the brim with CPUs and RAM sticks.

1 Like
61

That’s the job of Asobo, we are just here and throwing wishes left and right :laughing:

We didn’t hear anything after they mentioned it a year ago, so yes, too much enthusiasm isn’t any good.
But on the other side, if it’s impossible they wouldn’t have mentioned it at all.

I’ve read the same statement ‘‘our computers can’t handle it’’ when we were talking about the thermal implementation and now it’s here with 0 frame drops. So one way or another they will find a way and thanks to the Xbox people and the fact it has to work on that toaster, you can be sure it will work on a PC.

1 Like
62

Well, its a Q&A session with Management, and a chance to inject spin, and do a PR promotional “Dog & Pony” show.

Accept it for what it is, as it does serve some purpose, and for that, to have someone like the Community Manager moderate the Q&A , is quite appropriate.

But maybe what is also needed, is the restoration of some Technical Q&As, with the Asobo Software Engineers, Designers and SDK team, and that Moderated by a Technical Moderators, who can ask, and pursue answers to complex technical questions.

Maybe even a different Guest Technical Moderator each Q&A, invited from some of the major 3PD teams.

Even if only one or two topics are covered in each Q&A - cover them is sufficient detail, to make it worth while, and spread some significant technical information.

ie Please bring back the Technical (SDK) Q&A sessions

3 Likes