View Full Version : More wishful thinking
01-08-2006, 12:43 AM
Since everyone's listing features they would like to see (and probably won't), I'll do my part.
In general, anything that makes flying more dangerous would make FS more interesting, like airframe icing, 3D clouds and thunderstorms, truly extreme turbulence (as defined in the AIM), windshear, microbursts, even choppy water. I'd love to see in ANY flight simulator weather that is affected by terrain, especially winds. So many of the "dangerous approaches" around the world are that way because of unpredictable winds, turbulence and wind shear, which are only marginally simulated in FS9, and even then you have to manually create them.
Unfortunately, the computer power required to do this would probably exceed what FS uses already.
Also, I hope clouds become truly volumetric with real boundaries, white-out conditions inside, and turbulence restricted to being inside the clouds. I personally dislike the new flat clouds that only look 3D and fade as you approach.
01-08-2006, 02:14 AM
"Also, I hope clouds become truly volumetric with real boundaries, white-out conditions inside, and turbulence restricted to being inside the clouds. I personally dislike the new flat clouds that only look 3D and fade as you approach."
I agree with that. Well, I pretty much agree with your entire post, but that really rings true.
01-08-2006, 09:38 AM
turbulence restricted to being inside the clouds.
Now THAT would not be realistic. Turbulence can be caused by the sun's heating, by wind blowing over terrain, and other things. Over the desert southwest in the summer, it's getting pretty bouncy by 10:00 in the morning nearly every day, even when there's not a cloud in the sky. If you were flying around the Denver area right this minute, it would be rough as a cob, due to the Chinook winds we're experiencing at the moment (0740).
You can always disable turbulence in the sim, if you wish.
01-08-2006, 09:20 PM
Some of the roughest experiences I've had while flying have been when the skies were clear.
01-09-2006, 01:09 AM
What I meant was turbulence from the clouds themselves restricted to being inside the clouds--anyone who's flown has experienced this. And yes, I know there are sources of turbulence other than clouds. I too have experienced these. If Inuss had read my entire post, this would have been clear.
01-09-2006, 08:53 AM
I did read your entire post, and yes I saw references to microbursts, etc. And it wasn't clear to me (and still isn't, from your original post) that you only meant to restrict cloud turbulence to being inside the clouds.
In any case, the forces that cause turbulence within the clouds are often active outside the clouds themselves, though there may be fairly smooth areas around there, too (and sometimes not). Whether the cumulus clouds are fair-weather type, thunderstorm type, or in between, the thermal activity isn't usually limited to being in the clouds, though the activity is likely stronger within CBs or building Cu than outside them.
So I still think it's unrealistic. It's unclear to me how and when turbulence should only be inside clouds -- perhaps stronger inside under some conditions, but not limited to inside.
01-10-2006, 12:45 PM
Sorry guy, you said turbulence restricted to the inside of clouds.
You fly under one of those really big CBs and you will get bounced really good. If there was no rapidly rising column of warm air under the cloud, you would not have a cloud. This is why it is smoother to get on top if you can and fly over the clouds.
01-11-2006, 02:05 PM
ever hear of clear air turbulence and mountain waves? Last time I checked you didnt need to be in a cloud to get bumped around?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.