Listen what this pilot says in the last 6 minutes
3 Likes
The video that Ghostlyfriend above linked of Seb talking about these affects coming a few months in SU10, and specifically alluding to the experience I’m having with the 172 reassures me that this isn’t a bug at least but something they intended.
I have seen comments from some IRL pilots that you use opposite aileron when taxiing on the ground which I don’t know how to do and haven’t tried but I will google that and see if I can learn it, if that makes a difference.
I just don’t understand why the wind only affects the plane when the engine is running and its on the ground taxiing.
Surely in real life a plane that would be blown sideways as soon as you turn on the magnetos, would also be blow sideways with the engine off, or does the propellor contribute to the wind push even if the throttle is on idle?
I’d also think the plane would be hard to control in the air as well, but if I manage to take off, all the wind affects vanish and the plane is fine.
It’s very weird to me, but Seb seems to know what’s going on from that video so I’ll just have to look into it more and play around.
If the wind is coming from in front of you, ailerons into the wind. If the wind is behind you, yoke forward, and ailerons away from the wind.
It’s nothing to do with the engine running, more its speed. When your plane is at rest, there is enough friction to stop the plane from being moved. When you start rolling, the rudder doesn’t have enough authority yet to stop you from weathervaning. Rudder, and aileron input are needed to counter that. You may have noticed that if you land slightly fast, you are able to maintain the centre line until you start to decelerate, and more rudder is needed. Also at much slower speeds its easy to do this.
If you don’t have those default values in place, the crosswind is cancelled out entirely until you get to about 40kts if I remember correctly. I shot a video of this in an earlier SU.
The steam 172 has these values, but they are not customised for this plane. They have the crosswind set to always be present, even if the plane is stationary, which is how it would be in real life. But they haven’t tweaked the static friction of the tyres. so when you get to a certain speed, if the wind is strong enough even full rudder is not enough, and you may need differential brakes as well. Increase the values of the static friction would improve this. You can set it to silly values, and have the plane decrab itself as soon as the wheels touch, so some middle ground would be necessary.
Weathervaning doesn’t exist while in the air. The plane is moving with the airmass, so you will be crabbing into the wind. In other words your course is different to your heading.
2 Likes
For those that want better ground physics and i think talk about it should continue in this thread.
About the turbulence, it feels many of the users like it but also want Asobo to improve it 
That makes me happy
6 Likes
It’s not. It most definitely is not. We lived in vatsim with no gusts (or even, no live weather) for literally decades and we can live without it for another year.
Seriously, fly a cessna in a “moderate” gust now and try to tell me that’s “not deprived by them but enhanced instead”. You’d immediately know how wrong you are when your nose can’t point at the same spot for more than 0.1 second.
1 Like
This is a good demonstration. Indeed the winds shown at your video are fine. However the problem would come in timestamps 350 to 450 in the graph. Those ultrafast wind changes seen at last portion of the graph are what are not real at all, either if the changes happen to speed or to direction. It´s fine to have peaks but both the min, the max and the mean values need to last more, even if variables still change a lot during a period of time of one minute for instance.
If real wind was changing so fast it would turn into sustained wind instead, basically because any faster waves in rear of the front ones will push them sooner or later and the complete air mass will end moving as a whole, so as sustained wind. That´s why mathematics alone can´t be used to reproduce wind in game because with a formula everything is possible if you tell code to do it. You need to consider some basic physics as well, still without making the thing too complex because we don´t need that either. The basic principle which is missing here is that moving air still has a weight so abrupt changes can´t be instant unless they are produced by a several factors heavier or faster incomming mass, whose speed would most likely prevail then. That could be the case in game for instance if neighbouring areas winds are considerably faster than current area winds, but if they are similar the air masses would still need to accelerate or decelerate before changing their variables.
Cheers
can’t be further away from true. This is not realism. Real gusts don’t shift so rapidly, and real ultralights don’t fly in the air praying to be able to point their nose at the same place for more than 0.1 second.
Hell I can make a paper airplane and shoot it down a mountain, and its nose would still be more stable than flying a Sting S4 in the current “weakest” gust.
open your eyes and see the problem, seriously.
This video was being reposted like 10 times. However other real pilots have also written the opposite opinion about the implementation in this thread, so being basically not accurate at all. If there´s no agreement on something like that maybe that´s not the silver bullet that everyone is willing to have in game.
Cheers
It’s not “better” it’s “mandatory”. You need that change for GAs to even work.
If you’re having constant winds pre-SU10 then we’d have to be playing different games. The +/- 100 knot wind shifts and haywire wind direction in calm winds were not something invented by SU10.
I only joined in SU9 so IDK how long gusts were gone. But I still can’t understand how an incomplete feature who has been removed since SU4 or SU7 suddenly became part and parcel of the sim just because it got poorly re-introduced for a week. I personally clocked thousands of hours in FS2000 and 2004 without gusts, live weather, or even winds whatsoever (and obviously in the case of FS2000, without any kind of ATC). I just don’t see how it’s suddenly so important that some people can’t even live without it for a few extra months before it’s genuinely fixed.
Thats what i try to say. The frequency increases too fast while moving. Makes it more a sustained wind as you say. But i have not researched gust frequency and can’t tell for sure what frequency is perfect while moving.
So you measure realism by how long your planes nose points to the same spot? Hmmmm.
I think that may be an exaggeration.
Sure it has issues, but I think the real issue here is one of experience. If anyone is saying it is unflyable then they are either trying to fly a 172 into a hurricane, or, and I say this not being a real life pilot, not very good at flying their plane of choice.
See what you think of my effort, and these were light winds, nothing to write home about. About ~16 knots on final, so perhaps not as light as I remember.
https://youtu.be/Ar7eJOPdn-8?t=475
I like recording these, because I can go back and review my landings. I can see that I needed a little more left rudder here, and perhaps a little more aileron into wind, although that has its own problems. This was in the Warrior 2, but I don’t think my performance would have been much worse in the 172.
I would like to tell you I just had a flight yesterday with a Sting S4 in very, very light wind (like 5-10 knots and 1-3 knots gust). That’s very, very, very different from “flying a cessna into a hurricane”.
And once the plane left the ground it never stablized its yaw axis. The wind fluctates between +/- 5 knots maybe 5-10 times per second.
So in answering your question, yes, I am measuring gust realism by how long an ultralight can point its nose at any fixed bearing. I know this plane is flyable IRL. I know in such a fair weather it should be able to keep its bearing dead tight. It doesn’t in this sim. Hence it must be a problem in its simulation.
I’m not an IRL pilot either, but I know when a properly human-carrying aircraft is less stable than a friggin paper airplane, it’s definitely and indisputably wrong.
1 Like
You know what? play that video at 2x speed starting at 8:37. That’s about how shakey my experience was (youtube only supports up to 2x, otherwise I think 3x would be closer). Only that your shakes are mostly in pitch axis (and mostly induced by pilot adjusting course) while mine was mostly in yaw axis (and entirely induced by gust).
Sting S4 doesn’t have a yaw damper so no way to damp out the yaw oscillation.
To be honest, if my experience with gusts were as mild as your video, I probably would’ve been fine with it. But it’s not. You need to play that video at 3x to be close to my experience.
1 Like
That approach is fine. Nothing is wrong with wind there. The problem happens, borrowing recent Perry´s graph, when you face something like the yelllow marked portion in a crosswind.
I had that issue as well yesterday with a 2 kts wind in METAR, that magically turned into a 12 kts changing wind in speed and direction. Nothing still close to hurricanes, but results in never ending vibrating tail in game as you can see at the slip indicator.
I would like to see those real pilots flying in that case in game and saying that everything is still ok, because it´s not ok at all. It´s not even close to the behaviour that you see in your video for instance, where there´s turbulence, changing winds but everything is still consistent. When this situation reproduces wind is not consistent but it´s even not close to what real wind does with a 2 kts wind and without any gusts. Where those additional 10 kts winds came from? What generated them? The fornula in game, because the formula creates wind out of nothing because it´s generated artificially (which is not the case in the real atmosphere).
Cheers
1 Like
Thanks, this is really helpful. It’s all way over head for now as a casual simmer but it gives me some things to go on and learn. Have Asobo done a good job of modelling aileron input on the ground? I figured it would be inoperative like the carb heat in the 172, just not doing anything.
But great if they are accurately modelling that.
Well I AM a real pilot (licence in profile pic) and I can confirm that the turbulence/gusts in MSFS are NOT realistic.
Here is the default Cessna 172 flying into Hurricane Ian earlier. Notice how the aircraft yaws around the central axis. But where are the updrafts and downdrafts? There are none because they’re not modelled. The weather is broken. Will it be fixed? Probably not. They’re not interested in making this realistic - they just want people to buy their eye candy in the store.
If you are not a “real” Pilot and enjoy the game as it is that’s great but don’t start claiming that all is well based on your experience flying a computer. Flying in real life is different to flying a computer in your bedroom. I thought that was obvious but there are some odd people here who think it’s a realistic experience. It isn’t.
8 Likes
They don’t. Every real pilot I saw commenting about gusts said it’s too much (some specifically outlining fluctation rate as the issue). And those are airline pilots. If we get a bush pilot to see the current gust they’d probably smash the rig.
1 Like
I mentioned this in an earlier post. You may not see see those because, depending on which camera you see using, it is glued to your plane. You won’t see it move up, down, left , or right. Only rotate about its axis.
The drone camera has some lag to it, and that might show something. But the camera that you can pivot around your plane will show no such movement.
I disagree.
At the end of that video clip you can see that there is no change in altitude on the G1000 display. There are no updrafts or downdrafts.
1 Like
Ah, I see. I was referring to the view outside the plane as in the thumbnail, where you would see no relative movement between the plane, and the camera, as it chases the plane. I’m on a train at the moment so can’t play it easily on my phone.
It’s well documented by now that weather inside storm clouds leaves a lot to be desired.