Their sim, their choice … and I suggest this has everything to do with Microsoft’s future metaverse and developments in satellite technology.
1 Like
The choice is theirs but at its current state the product is far from what’s been advertised. Realistic Dangerous Weather - Physics Simulation - #208 by HomieFFM
2 Likes
“In it’s current state” is exactly that aka it’s a work still in progress. Rome was not built in a day.
Something for the developers to learn
1 Like
IMHO, the new Turblulence setting should not have any effect on Live Weather at all.
It’s called Live Weather for a reason.
Now some folks are asking for more sliders for other Live Weather settings, to dumb it down even more.
That’s fine for the Presets, but none of those settings should be applied to Live Weather.
6 Likes
I started getting some turbulence a couple of days ago. The weather, winds aloft and turbulence have been right on the mark for me.
Been flying in New Zealand, KPHX-KFLG, KPHX-KSFO, KSFO-KPHX, KPHX-KLAS, KLAS-KSFO. Using SimBrief, Navigraph and the CJ4.
1 Like
Yes, it may give unfair advantage for low turbulence option in multiplayer gliding flights/competitions.
2 Likes
But the aspects of the whole live weather feature is subjective. Some likes the small amount of turbulence we have in live weather but some others find it too low and some thinks its too much. And the custom weather is a preset set completely same everywhere in the world. I bet most of the users use live weather because it sets different weather conditions for departure and arrival airport automatically.
Another sim i uses we can use the live weather in custom weather an tune the live weather how we want. But in this sim we either have live-weather with no options or custom weather with only one weather condition set globally.
2 Likes
Yes and it is not a case of dumbing-down the sim, what users want is turbulence to be as realistic as possible, in the same way as we want (and have got) very realistic visuals.
The wxr visual is 2nd to none, but its effect on the aircraft is unrealistic at the moment, even with “Realistic” turned on and heavy wxr.
The difficulty is how to simulate realistic turbulence because we all have different setups. Some have one monitor, some multiple monitors/projectors, some VR, some motion platforms given their increasing lower costs. Turbulence should not be just visual (eg camera shaking) but, like the real thing, buffeting and changes in altitude/velocity/roll which can then be felt by those with motion or partly sensed by those visually seeing it
I’m lucky to have a motion platform and I go through heavy wxr without a bump in the default A320, and that would not be the case in thre real thing. So I want to turn it up. But user B may have a different motion platform configured to be more responsive, so he may be happy
Same with multi-monitors or projectors, for a full wrap-around view of say 220 degress you can’t have camera shake on, but you need turbulence. Someone with a VR with the visuals up close may experience more turbulence than someone with a monitor/projector far away
That is why it is subjective, we may all be flying say the same A320 but we all have different setups. That is why we need to be able to configure it, same way as Active Sky do
Totally agree 
The more settings the better. Then we can tune it how we find it realistic instead of Asobo tries to find a setting that feels realistic for everyone. I think that is impossible to achieve even if they nail it perfect there will be users that thinks it’s overdone or too low.
2 Likes
The MS reluctance to implement more settings and options is hard to understand, unless it is because the large majority of the users runs the same platform (i.e. Xbox), and because there is a value in everybody seeing and feeling exactly the same. For example, a powerful latest generation PC could simulate a lot of the weather and the atmosphere and generate a much more realistic and awesome atmosphere, than if the weather is determined in the cloud for all, and then delivered as a matrix of voxels. The same probably goes for the turbulence - it’s probably a deterministic stream of perturbations, identical for all.
1 Like
I wish PC and Xbox versions were separated. I would even pay more for a version with all the bells and whistles, normal cameras, and without console UI.
1 Like
Yes, maybe but we would still see complains about accuracy. They can’t simulate weather if it needs to be accurate to real weather all the time. Thats a fact. For example, outside of those METAR bubbles the winds and turbulence is simulated then suddenly near airports it needs to be fixed to METAR winds. Thats not simulated, thats forced weather and real weather is not forced to be in a state.
Agree, but that also create complains because we see weather realisitic in different ways. I know you are like me that preffered the weather we had pre su7 that were more simulated than it is now. But many complained here and got that simulated weather changed for us that liked the weather system we had. Then we were forced using that other weather system that maybe those that wanted likes and enjoys now.
Interesting that I get really realistic bumps (with the motion platform) when taxiing in the A320, I get the bumps as if it is a real taxiway, it is very good. I get more bumps on the ground than in the air though, where there is hardly anything, even in heavy weather (realistc setting on)
1 Like
I must admit i’m a bit jelous that you have a motion platform. Dissapointing that the sim doesn’t simulate turbulence that well yet though. Hope that it can change now when they have those options. That means they would be able to without getting complains right?
Yeah the realistic weather turbulence is not very good! In general, very minor turbulence in the air, and also zero turbulence in the clouds! Hope Asobo reviews this and addresses this issue soon…
4 Likes
Yes! Under P3D with Active Sky, A320 the turbulence with motion platform was extremely realistic. When I say realistic, I mean if I closed my eyes I would feel the sort of thing I feel when I fly on the real.
Active Sky also modelled turb in clouds, so when you entered one you would get a nice chop, just like the real. They also had the much-wanted wxr radar, so the wxr you could see out the window was on your PFD display, another thing lacking in MSFS.
The wxr radar I can live without for a while, but turbulence is an essential additional sensory
This is all about heightening realism and immersion. The visual side is sorted, its wonderful, but we need to satisfy the other senses
5 Likes
Same here!
Definitly disappointed that I temporally stopped using msfs to avoid more frustration which is sane on my side! hhh I’ll wait for the next beta updates. So now by flying XP12 (my back up) obligates me to avoid CB and TS for the sake of safety ( and realism ) as I did in real flights and I really enjoy it.
Flying a C152 in CB/TS is still totally unrealistic in msfs and honestly that kills my immersion no matter the beautiful panorama is that I have in front of my eyes…
I don’t want to be too critical because we are still in beta, I just don’t understand the choices of Asobo concerning their picture of realism. I’m still speechless when I read around that turbulence is realistic now in this beta??? for sure those users talk about realism without having a real picture of how it goes in the real sky for just one reason they’ve never had a real yoke in their hand.
Again the weather is a corner stone in Aviation.
Hopefully we will be happy soon!
Wait & See for further updates beta to measure what they mean about realism!
12 Likes
That’s ridiculous. MSFS atmospheric airflow simulation is lightyears ahead of XP. Anyone that actually tests the simulation should know this. You’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater because one single cause of turbulent air is not currently simulated, even though XP is far behind when it comes to simulating all the other causes of turbulent air. Unless you only fly in clouds, it seems odd to me that CB turbulence (or lack thereof) would take precedence over literally everything else going on in the atmospheric airflow simulation. Do you complain on the XP forums that XP doesn’t simulate solar radiation, which affects the average pilot far more than CB turbulence? Do you claim on the XP forums that anyone that doesn’t complain about the lack of simulated solar radiation has never flown a real plane?
I’m sure Asobo could please you guys with “if in cloud, randomly shake plane”, but they are clearly going for something far more advanced with their CFD atmospheric airflow simulation. The problem is, the proximity airflow simulation particles are not interacting with the clouds. When they do, it will be far better than whatever XP is currently doing, whether you guys actually realize it or not.
5 Likes
If you could be right, it will be amazing.