It seems that every single mountain/hill in the terrain yields a drastic “wave turbulence” and downdraft effect that can disrupt flights cruising some 20-30k feet above it…
This happens despite these flights occurring in zones without close-proximity to clouds or clear-air-turbulence, so it’s clearly some wonky mechanic that has been put in, where the “wave turbulence” effect extends up way too high.
But let’s pretend for a moment that the wave turbulence effect was implemented realistically… surely we then have to ask ourselves about the frequency of this effect? Why does it happen over every single bit of rough terrain, 100% of the time, without fail?.. It makes an unpredictable phenomenon very predictable.
Turbulence in general is way over the top. Too much clear air turbulence at altitude. Often it is bad enough to disconnect the auto pilot. That kind of CAT should be very rare.
I’m not sure if weather-related turbulence has already been covered in other threads, but if it were fixed, we’d still be left with this wonky mechanical turbulence.
just voted this up - insane amounts of turbulence over any mountain range and its unavoidable. I thought maybe some turblence maps could help me avoid it so i could navigate around but no, its insane. Wobbling 30 degrees or falling 1500 feet in seconds.
Thanks. I’ve noticed that just about any ‘wrinkle’ in the terrain is enough to cause this turbulence effect.
For example, the screenshot below is from my flight earlier today, where I was about to capture the glideslope for ILS Rwy 10 at RCSS. Those hills in the foreground were enough to make my plane rock from side-to-side, before the effect eventually dissipated once I crossed into the city. The approach chart certainly makes no mention of turbulence in this area…
interesting find, i wonder if there’s something going on here. Hopefully this will get enough attention, trying to fly w/Self Loading Cargo and my passengers hate me getting 2G forces and 0G forces from Turbulence lol
Agreed that the turbulence, especially over mountainous terrain, could/should be dialed back by about half. That said, the rule of thumb I learned long ago is to take the number in the quadrant on the sectional and multiply by 1.5 as a minimum altitude to help mitigate “the bumpies.”
I’ll see if I can capture it - never captured something before but I’m sure i can figure it out. FWIW I’m flying from KSFO to KIAH IFR, 35,000 ft cruse over the socal mountain region with 0 turbuence at the moment.
If anyone gets this now and wants to check turbulence reports for that area to see if it aligns then maybe its just a matter of dialing down how extreme it’s been.
@Seven7Tango thanks for sharing that skyvector map, that’s $$$ - love learning this.
« Mountain wave forms when strong winds blow across a mountain range, causing a wave-like pattern and extending for up to hundreds of miles downwind of the mountain range. And while mountain wave can be beneficial for gliders as a form of lift, breaking waves and rotors can create severe to extreme turbulence, which can make for a very bumpy, and even dangerous flight for just about everyone else. »
I seriously see no reason to tone it down. Maybe add an option to remove realistic mountain waves. Also they should add turbulence and wind in the sim with an option to disable them instead of not providing these essential effects.
Is it just me or does anybody else also feels that the turbulence over hilly terrain seems to be overdone? Even if I’m more than 25k feet above the ground in an airliner, the persistent turbulence from mountains would hit the plane really hard. Is the turbulence over hills really so harsh and goes so high in real life?
I get what you mean, but I am not complaining. I suppose that because the sim cannot duplicate the actual bodily jolts of turbulence, the exaggerated effects try to still make it “immersive”. Of course if there are really bad spots, it would be worth checking on the algorithm for fine tuning.
Turbulence over and around mountains is a real thing and often in abundance. I often feel like turbulence and or buffeting isn’t done enough in the sim by comparison to all you may feel while in an aircraft. Over an expansive mountain range it depends a lot on the altitude of which you’re at equating to what wind layer you may be in and too where you’re at over mountain ranges or large hills. Winds aloft over ranges may be rather smooth or straight-line but the clear air turbulence may occur in between fluctuating layers and where we see upper and lower level jet stream direction variation.
In ways MSFS has done a good job with the modeling *certain weather dynamics. For instance over large buildings, around the edges of mountains and even flying over forests to then be flying over parking lots and lots of concrete results in a bumpier flight in comparison to flying over a flat forested area. I do use REX weather though but the default weather presets seem to be pretty good too. FL220 to 270 can be a rather bumpy level to be at times. Are you using real world weather? There is still a lot to be desired with the weather modeling in the sim, like for instance how wind effects clouds, clouds in many ways can give us a lot of information in regards to wind conditions. You’ll also see in the sim clouds that shouldn’t be where they are based off of the real data you may have. I never see big thunderstorms anvil at their tops as they should when they expand into upper level winds that are in excess of 90 knots or so nor do we see any kind of billowing. Just static. It would be nice to see one day it all working together as it does but that is like a sim all together, weather sim
getting 2G forces and 0G forces from Turbulence lol
