Most realistic / fluid atmosphere?

[turner112 52]

Hi all,

 

Went flying locally yesterday, and it was a bit gusty, with some good lifty thermals starting late morning over the local fields.. not smooth. It took constant adjustment and while it was no big deal, it's a far cry from "riding on rails".

 

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but what's the best way to enable/recreate this in P3D? Basically, the fluidity of the atmosphere.

 

(I have Active Sky Next but have not tried tweaking anything)

 

thanks

Andrew

[vgbaron 3,613]

Set ASN turbulence at max and enable enhanced turbulence. Then if the metar supports it, you will get what you want. Try flying over ridges on a hot day and you'll get bumped around in the thermals.

 

 

Vic

[turner112 52]

Thanks - will try that out.

[twojastara 85]

Set ASN turbulence at max and enable enhanced turbulence. Then if the metar supports it, you will get what you want. Try flying over ridges on a hot day and you'll get bumped around in the thermals.

 

Wow, I didn't know that ASN supports prediction of thermals.

Is this working for different surfaces too? For example forest edges, tarmac surfaces etc.?

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

While you'll get bounced around, I don't think you're going to get fluidity.  It doesn't appear that ESP was developed to flow through a vector field of wind (which I would have hoped).  It seems to 'sample' the wind periodically and adjust the airplane...about every half-second.  It doesn't make for a fluid flow of air.

[hesynergy 67]

I wonder if we could increase the sample rate without decreasing the frames per second… That would be very cool!

 

Chas

[jcomm 5,926]

Turbulence, shear... effects in FSX are mild, default or injected.

 

You can ride your aircraft towards the red / purple eye of the storm, and it's piece of cake....  No rocking of the wings, unless the aircraft designers implement it specifically....

[turner112 52]

Hi guys,

 

Hmmm.... well, I don't necessarily think we'd even need a higher sample rate - the same (or even lower) sample rate with good interpolation would go a long way... 

 

It's not the "actual numbers" that make the flight feel more realistic - it's what the sim does with them!

[Thomas Andersen 45]

P3D is my favourite sim, but X-plane 10 comes much closer to simulating flight through air. Having said that, the xp10 flight model generally seems to sensitive, especially pitch control.

[TrafficPilot 121]

P3D is my favourite sim, but X-plane 10 comes much closer to simulating flight through air.

 

Totally disagree with last part of your statement. Do you regularly fly real light aircraft in real weather?

 

I find the P3D/FSX "flight dynamics" ;alot more realistic than any of the Xplane sims and I've been flying real aeroplanes for 30 years.

[Thomas Andersen 45]

Totally disagree with this statement. Do you regularly fly real light aircraft in real weather?

 

I find the P3D/FSX "flight dynamics" ;alot more realistic than any of the Xplane sims and I've been flying real aeroplanes for 30 years.

 

I am student pilot with 30 hours - so my experience is far less than yours for sure. But it didnt take me many hours in a real airplane to come to the conclusion that P3D/FSX IS "flying on rails" compared to the real thing. 

Case in point: Consider an approach with 10 KN crosswind with a few knots of gusts. In FSX/P3D as you are approaching the threshold and flaring the aircraft, very few control inputs are required to maintain horizontal and vertical profile. When I practice touch and gos in the real world with the same wind conditions, a lot of control inputs are required to maintain a stable approach. In my opinion a real world landing is far more challenging than a FSX landing

[TrafficPilot 121]

Case in point: Consider an approach with 10 KN crosswind with a few knots of gusts. In FSX/P3D as you are approaching the threshold and flaring the aircraft, very few control inputs are required to maintain horizontal and vertical profile. When I practice touch and gos in the real world with the same wind conditions, a lot of control inputs are required to maintain a stable approach. In my opinion a real world landing is far more challenging than a FSX landing

 

I partially agree with you Thomas although sometimes I find it harder to land in P3D than in real life due to the lack of visual cues which we get plenty of on final approach in the real world.

 

Are you saying that you think XP10 replicates the landing in a more realistic manner than P3D/FSX?

 

I find P3D with ASN and turbulence switched to high quite realistic in many circumstances. Do you use any weather generation programs in P3D or XP10?

[KingGhidorah 209]

Maybe an update has toned it down a little, but when I first got ASN, I found that setting ASN turbulence to Enhanced that the extra kick it delivered to the aircraft frequently seemed too much, especially in areas labeled "light" turbulence. Leaving the Enhanced set to Off and having well tuned Ezdok momentum settings seems to deliver the most believable experience for me.

[vgbaron 3,613]

King - yes, they reduced the default turbulence settings after some user comments. I prefer them at max myself but each to his own. During my active years flying IRL I got tossed around plenty and find that ASN is the closest to real flying that I have found. Not 100% perfect but what is?

 

 

 

Vic

[turner112 52]

FWIW I used FSX a ton to learn RW crosswind landings.

 

The important thing here is not to confuse procedure with motion... it helped understand what to do, as well as to understand the motions needed, and practice the motion  but only the procedural form of the motion, not the "actual" movement needed.

 

The fluidity in these sims could probably be faked with impunity if it added realistic movement, though.