I agree. At the moment the questions seem so disjointed and I find it difficult to follow sometimes.
Great idea!
1 Like
Absolutely! Hopefully this legitimate enthusiasm will have a positive resonance! 
1 Like
they had turbulence in storms in FSX more than 15 years ago, and my current machine is significantly faster than the one i used back then. i’m not asking for a completely accurate scientific weather forecasting model, just the basics like storm=bad
2 Likes
I think it’s a testament to Asobo’s ambition to do things right, or don’t do them at all. Of course they could’ve come up with a rudimentary implementation without the need for complicated physics calculations. All they’d have needed to do was to throw in some lines of code, something like random_shake_chance and random_shake_intensity, fiddle around with a numbers a bit, badaboom, there’s your FSX-style turbulence model. It’s a simulacrum, though.
Now, obviously it doesn’t really matter on the user’s end how exactly things are done as long as the final result is somewhat authentic. From Asobo’s perspective, however, they’re working on a product that’s still in the infancy of its decade-long lifespan. They can count on more computing power being available to their customers in a couple of years, which in turn allows them to come up with more resource-hungry solutions in the long term than those are feasible today. And as fellow simmers, they remember the bloody mess of legacy code and redundant, badly-working systems and interactions FSX was at the end of its lifespan. I do too. Which is why I welcome Asobo’s commitment to doing things properly, rather than fixing blunders with gorilla code.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.