Turbulences have been reduced by 90%

Erm, all cumulus clouds are formed by convection, so it was a convective day by definition.

An 8 knot wind with cumulus may well create a fair bit of turbulence. Never mind light aircraft, as a data point on what can happen in calm but warm weather I’ve flown out of Mexico City airport countless times from A320s to B777s, and on days with calm winds you wouldn’t even notice walking around, and only a few cumulus clouds about, the weather near the surface is usually VERY bumpy even in heavys.

Given how high temperatures are in most of the northern hemisphere at the moment, I would expect convective turbulence to be strong, I’m not sure what people expect in light aircraft?

4 Likes

I haven’t found turbulence to be particularly bad in the C172 lately, even in the beta; I mostly fly VFR in Oregon and California in the early morning hours, or in the early afternoon. Hilly and mountainous areas are more turbulent but that seems perfectly believable.

If conditions aren’t VFR-friendly at my first choice area, I pick another location.

(The Sting S4 seems to be “wobbling” a lot, which may indicate something changed in the CFD simulation, but the C172 gave me no such trouble.)

Improvements to the camera behavior would probably be good, though.

1 Like

I will stay polite. I will stay polite. I will stay polite…

It is not analogous to compare an urban environment in mountainous terrain to open water. The light cumulus clouds without extensive vertical development tell the whole story over open water; over urban environments on the mountains they do not.

A steady, 8-knot wind 20 degrees off centerline is not going to cause a Cessna 172 to CLIMB at 34 knots.

It could climb in vertical updrafts. The meassured winds are lateral/horizontal winds.

I 172 is not going to climb at 34 knots IAS while flaring. It is physically impossible.

Then it could be some issues with the flight model of the specific aircraft.

Edit: I think i can reproduce it with only constant winds in custom weather. I could actually climb from standing still in less than 32KTS. But i need to have engine inputs to not move backwards and i needed to have 44KTS of headwind

Total weight 2185LB

I could also lift while takingoff in 9KTS winds with 34KTS indicated airspeed. But why should the turbulence be the issue in this? I could do the same without any kind of gusts/turbulence. To me that feels like it should be reported in another thread about c172 flight model.

Makes sense, napkin math puts stall speed in landing configuration at 2185LB without ground effect at around 44KCAS, which matches your wind speed. Toss in some ground effect and thermal convection and you’re at least getting it a few feet off the ground.

You are in the G1000 172? I really appreciate your testing here!

I was going to post separately, but I will just add it here (for @Raynen as well): I think it specific to the Asobo aircraft. I just did the same flight as yesterday, this time in the JF Warrior, and it was a different story. Still getting turbulence from thermals, but no constant, slow oscillation in cruise flight. And landing was much better. You can actually pull the nose up into a flare and land.

It’s really as if the Asobo 172 and 152 have no weight to them. And no longitudinal stability.

Yes, i am and i feel like you. I have not flown default aircraft for some time and they feel completely different than more complex 3rd party aircraft especially now in su10 with gusts. The thing i have noticed in c172 is that the rudder has not much effect especially in crosswind. Also the drag, it’s hard to make it slow down in speed when coming in for landing. I feel that 152 feels a bit better than 172 actually.

No problem testing, it’s fun to check those graphs and stuff especially now with gusts. :slight_smile: Pre su10 we had a complete straight line of winds while standing still on runway. Now the winds are alive again.

1 Like

Yeah, and the other thing I noticed right away with the Warrior, you (correctly) have to use right rudder on takeoff! Whereas with the Asobo planes it’s always left rudder on the ground and then right rudder as soon as you’re airborne.

I’m going to test the Bonanza and see how that feels. But the sim sure is alive now with the winds!

1 Like

You have that plane as well. Really nice plane i must say! I really like the details in it but it’s so simple to just start up and fly in and it feels amazing flying it :slight_smile: I can really feel the weight in it. I can’t undestand how the weight can feel so different. I have used the default A320 and it feels so light compared to fenix A320. Both of those has the same mass IRL.

1 Like

Yeah I do, it’s the closest thing in the sim to my actual airplane, which is a Cherokee 180. I know what you mean, you CAN feel the weight in it for sure. It’s interesting how that works, but it does. Feels way different than the 172. Both should be equally docile. I’m not complaining too much about the stock planes. I’ve always loved the 152 and the 930. I’m sure Asobo will get it sorted.

2 Likes

I’m curious, is anyone having the same ( ‘extreme’ ) experiences described throughout this thread when flying any particular 3rd-party aircraft?
If so, it would interesting to hear which ones. (See what similarities, if any, they may hold to one another.)


My 'overall' experience with default aircraft around this topic;

I honestly cannot remember the last time I flew a default aircraft, so when jumping into the C152 to record those videos the other day, it really stood out to me how twitchy/light it felt! Especially when comparing to how I remember it being when I last flew it. (That was quite a fair while ago! I could be misremembering.)
I jumped into a few other defaults and had somewhat similar experiences. Some better than others though. The twitchiness of some did make them seemingly harder to control in many conditions.
(i.e. Didn’t respond/react in a way I might expect in those conditions/phases of flight - both aircraft and myself - I found it was very easy to over-correct with only the smallest of input.)

This is just what I personally noticed about them around this particular topic with my very quick flights. I’m not saying the default aircraft are bad, or anything of the like by any means! :slight_smile:


Condensed below is some observations/experiences on the topic; of a few add-on light aircraft I tend to find myself in.

Click to Expand

Firstly, I mostly fly locations where conditions tend to fall in-line, are suitable, for which aircraft I may be flying, especially in these lighter birds - also, I mainly fly in areas I know.

  • This is purely my own experiences flying these within SU10.
  • These are the only Light Aircraft/GA I’ve taken to the skies in with SU10.

In no particular order:
Iris Jabiru - The first aircraft I ever flew was a J160 (back at the ripe age of 12 I first got behind the controls of one). It has also been the (powered)aircraft I’ve spent the most time in, too. Being so small, this little thing really gets tossed and bumped around IRL! In the sim I’m bumped and tossed around about as much as I would expect to be. (I very rarely fly this in sim these days though - the sim has changed a lot since this aircraft released - still flys relatively like the real thing.)
SWS Zenith - Also a very light aircraft, I find it handles weather quite well considering it’s size. Bumped around like I’d imagine I’d be, especially with it’s purpose of bush flying
Ant’s Drifter - As an ultralight it is quite susceptible to weather… Though, I really enjoy putting around in this little bird, even more now amongst the new alive live weather!
JF Arrow - I’ve only been up in a Cherokee 180 and also a Warrior, a couple of times IRL (I don’t own the JF Warrior though). The Arrow does seem to ‘feel’ how I’d expect(imagine) one might.


Overall on the turbulence front, I can’t say I’ve really experienced too much more than light turbulence in any of these (or larger aircraft like: DC-6, BAe146, etc.), even when in much rougher conditions that are leaning toward the demonstrated limits of the aircraft. Of course, in those rougher conditions I am getting bumped about much more than something of, let’s call it: normal conditions, as to be expected.

Landing feels fine too with these, I don’t notice huge ground effect that seems to exist with the few default aircraft I flew.


They seem to have had some decent care taken in creation of their flight model; which must be a help in how it all feels overall. It’s possible this could be one factor in why I can’t say I’ve really experienced any true extremities with the turbulence.
[Putting aside the rough edges to be smoothed out as the weather engine progresses; - erratic changes, I assume is related to flying in and out of metar areas; - further refinement of “newly introduced” features such as gusts etc.]


FYI - I only fly gliders these days IRL. Cash flow made it difficult to afford the powered flight time to gain a PPL (I’ll get there eventually), so I quite quickly gravitated to soaring, was never going to give up the dream that easy. :sweat_smile:



I’m also curious (+would enjoy hearing) if anyone has similar opinions, experiences, or not - to what I have experienced above. :slight_smile:

I am now starting to be convinced that it’s the default aircraft. The Warrior is much better. It’s definitely a more dynamic environment, but that’s what weather is. But at least this aircraft feels like it has some weight to it.

2 Likes

I totally agree! :slight_smile:

I have meassured the gusts since release of su10 beta and the gusts as they are now is much improved in frequency. I think we all feel they are improved even if we not meassure it.

What i’ve noticed:

  1. The frequency increases smooth now with the groundspeed.

  2. The frequency decreases smooth the higher we are flying. At above around 3000FT the gust frequency is as low frequency as it is at 0 groundspeed and that will make it smooth at higher altitudes.

  3. The difference between average wind and gustrate becames lower and lower the higher we fly. At around 3000FT the difference is almost 0 that makes the air smooth at higher altitudes.

This is how gusts actually works IRL :wink: Well done Asobo. The gusts feels amazing as they are right now.

5 Likes

No one here can give a definitive answer to whether turbulence is correct. Only people who are experienced are meteorologists.

Asobo should form a group of meteorologists from the Met Office, NOAA, etc to analyse the data to determine if weather is correct.

1 Like

But they have Meteoblue as partner. Those are meteorologists. Even if those tells how weather works and behaves we at the forum complains and tells how weather should work. Like the demand to implementing METAR for example, METAR does not decide weather IRL. It’s only a simple/low detailed report of the weather at that small area around the weather station.

If we want calm air just pick a spot with around 0KTS of wind on meteoblue map and fly there.

Do not pick places that looks like this.

With gusts implemented those maps has purpose even if the gusts/turbulence is not 100% perfect (will never be). Before su10 i could land in any of those weather conditions and that is far less realistic.

2 Likes

A centrifuge simulates g-forces and not everyone can handle the same g-force tolerances. As Tom Scott demonstrated here G-Force, Jerk, and Passing Out In A Centrifuge - YouTube.

Flight simulator users are similar, many cannot handle the tolerance of simulated weather. They ask Asobo on the forum to change the parameters to be more realistic to real weather. Unfortunate it does not always work and Asobo has to change the parameters. It is constantly difficult to get satisfactory. Many users have intolerance to turbulent weather because of personal experience, health problems or developers want a standardised testing environment. They ask Asobo for an option.

No one wants to exclude anyone from playing flight simulator because of intolerance to certain weather conditions. Everyone is welcome here.

Well, i have never been against options. Actually i have asked for it to not have turbulence limited/disabled for everyone. Same with METAR. Should also be optional.

If the turbulence options is in Live-weather or custom-weather i don’t care as long as we can have the atmosphere as realistic as possible without limits as standard/default setting :slight_smile:

1 Like

well, give me the money that it costs to fly irl ! and stick to your playstation/ X-box