wake turbulance/vortices generated by planes on take off.

[alexzar14]

Guys can this be turned off within ASN?

2 flights ended in crash on touch down because of jets taking off on adjacent runways.

 

I think I can sacrifice this realistic effect because in real life it is very unlikely passenger jets encounter these turbulances on landing due to proper ATC anyway. I just want my flights end well.

[f16jockey_2]

Settings -> Wind Options (and effects) -> Wake turbulence strength

Set to 0 to disable.

 

Weird you didn't find this by yourself, even without reading the manual.

It's in a very logical location IMO.

 

Wim

[pvarn]

When you start flying on the VAT under ATC control, you will never have this problem. The ATC will either not permit the take off until proper spacing is obtained, or will warn you about potential wake turbulence so you can adjust your spacing. Live ATC will delay the take off on the adjacent rny or launch the departing aircraft way in advance of your landing to prevent this situation. On the Vat, you'll want to re-eanble WT for realism and the potential problem you had is very unlikely.

In the real world, if a pilot gets in this situation on landing, they will call a go around.

 

Many of the realism features in ASN have the express purpose of forcing the pilot to use real world procedures and avoidance.

 

-Pv-

[kabekew]

The ASN turbulence is not realistic because it doesn't look at the category of aircraft causing it. Your 747 will get flipped over even from an ultralight, which wouldn't happen in real-world. ATC also wouldn't apply wake turbulence separation between such aircraft, so it is pretty useless to have it enabled.

[pvarn]

There is code in ASN which detects how much an aircraft weighs and scales the effect.

 

I have flown gliders (hard to get much lighter than that) in ASN wakes without getting flipped upside-down and have never been flipped in heavier aircraft.

There is a cone of influence behind a generating aircraft. You get outside that cone (typically 5 to 10 degrees higher because wakes sink) and you'll not get any wake effect. Distance is a factor too (again because wakes sink.) If you view the xgauge with WT enabled, you can see the trail of influence behind every aircraft. Just stay out of the graphic.

 

-Pv-

[kabekew]

There is code in ASN which detects how much an aircraft weighs and scales the effect.

 

Maybe so, but I've found the code to be flawed, or it's relying on data that may not be correct especially with freeware addons. I was flying a 737 on short final behind a departing GA piston or twin (can't remember) and it flipped me right over. Not only was the intensity incorrect, but the wake wasn't supposed to be there at all (in reality it should both sink and spread outward). It's nice that it's displayed on the gauge, but that is not realistic and you shouldn't have to look at a gauge anyway to avoid an unrealistic wake.

 

Just my experience and opinion, FWIW.

[pvarn]

I've been an ASN beta tester since Nov 2013 and have worked with this feature at great length. Because of the wide difference in quality between modeler skills and accuracy, ASN provides a WT scale slider so you can adjust it per your aircraft preference.

 

Indeed, you should not have to rely on the gauge to avoid WT. I can tell you from experience it is possible to do so. Staying several miles behind is what is practiced in the real world and it also works in the sim. WT in the sim does indeed sink.

 

I have spent several hundred hours with this feature and tested it for weeks in a glider being towed only a few hundred feet away. and be staling above the tow plane (which is the technique used in the real world) I can stay out of the wake even this close which is strong evidence the WT is below the generating aircraft even this close.

 

If you can create a video demonstrating the WT is working wrongly in ASN, please visit the Hifi support forum with your evidence they will be very interested in investigating.

 

You could be part of the solution with very little effort.

 

-Pv-

[alexzar14]

Settings -> Wind Options (and effects) -> Wake turbulence strength

Set to 0 to disable.

 

Weird you didn't find this by yourself, even without reading the manual.

It's in a very logical location IMO.

 

Wim

 

 

Thanks. You are correct. I was typing from my work office (as I do now) believing I would not find the proper setting in ASN by myself. Must have checked and ASN settings first.

 

Yesterday I disabled the setting, flew a very nice flight A320-X KIAH-JFK non-interrupted.

[alexzar14]

When you start flying on the VAT under ATC control, you will never have this problem.

 

I want to start, I already registered but I have a ton of introductory reading to do, get the proper software and hardware... too much for me at this time.

[ScatterbrainKid]

I should imagine WT drifts with the wind in the real world, so as a matter of interest if there's a slight crosswind component across the runway wouldn't the following landing aircraft be free of the danger of WT?

And does WT drift with the wind in FSX too?

[lnuss]

I should imagine WT drifts with the wind in the real world, so as a matter of interest if there's a slight crosswind component across the runway wouldn't the following landing aircraft be free of the danger of WT?

And does WT drift with the wind in FSX too?

 

That depends on the wind direction and velocity (real world, anyhow). Keep in mind that the wake turbulence spreads out, as well as sinking, so that if the crosswind component velocity matches (or comes close to) the rate of WT spread, then that from one wing could stay over the runway for quite a while, as the other drifts downwind.

 

What it does in the sim, though, I have no idea, as I've never seen it- I guess it's part of an add-on? ASN=Active Sky Next???? (from googling?)

[lnuss]

and be staling above the tow plane (which is the technique used in the real world)

 

I hope that was a typo, and you meant "staying" rather than "stalling."

[Sampa]

Guys can this be turned off within ASN?

2 flights ended in crash on touch down because of jets taking off on adjacent runways.

 

I think I can sacrifice this realistic effect because in real life it is very unlikely passenger jets encounter these turbulances on landing due to proper ATC anyway. I just want my flights end well.

 

NEVER depend on the instructions of ATC, not completely. At best, they can only guide. As the PIC, it is YOUR responsibility to keep watch over the traffic ahead of you for final separation. IMO anyway!

[pvarn]

"I guess it's part of an add-on? ASN=Active Sky Next???? (from googling?) "

 

Yes, this thread started out as a discussion of Wake Turbulence as generated by Active Sky Next.

 

It's quite simple in FS under ASN control actually:

 

Stay well behind aircraft in front of you and above their altitude, not below and you'll not have any problems and you'll not have to turn the feature off. If you DO get into WT in ASN with it set to default, it means YOU the PILOT are doing something which would not be permitted in the real world unless you are air refueling.

 

-Pv-

[MBKHOU]

I'll be watching out for that.. Haven't run across it yet, but as you say, not really

normal to be on someones tail too close.. I just started using ASN here.. Had been

using OPUS for a good while, and it's pretty good I suppose, but I wanted the radar

in the 737NGX, which the latest Sp1d installed.. Works pretty slick. I had been using the

ASN demo to make sure everything would work OK, and bought it today a couple of days

before the demo would have gone kaput.

 

I did try the SP2, as I wanted it to work in the Steam version also, but it gave me all

kinds of problems, both with Steam, and FSX, which it had been working fine with SP1B,

or whatever it is.. It kept wanting me to install the simconnect, which I already have

all three legacy versions installed, and even when I reinstalled the one it wanted, it

still kept saying I needed it.. And some other error too. I got tired of messing with it

for now, and deleted SP2, and put SP1b back on.. I'll mess with it some more later to

see if I can get it to work..

 

I actually think OPUS clouds may look slightly better than ASN, but I think ASN handles

winds aloft a lot smoother. With OPUS, I would get the abrupt wind shifts aloft, and so

far, ASN seems pretty dang smooth up in the thin air. So far haven't seen any of the

abrupt shifts with it. So that's a definite advantage.

[pvarn]

"I did try the SP2, as I wanted it to work in the Steam version also, but it gave me all

kinds of problems,"

 

You tried the BETA of course since SP2 has not been released and it will be a while longer before it does.

 

"I actually think OPUS clouds may look slightly better than ASN,"

 

ASN does not determine the look or appearance of the clouds. It uses whatever cloud shapes and shading you already have in your cloud texture library. In your case, it's using the same cloud textures as Opus is using. ASN only makes sure the TYPES, LAYERS, and ALTITUDES of the clouds are what the local weather station METAR data says they are supposed to be and performs REAMS of very precise checking to keep the interpretation of the metar data from creating artifacts and collisions.

 

-Pv-

[MBKHOU]

Yep, I realize they both are using the same textures, but in some cases the OPUS

clouds seem to look a bit better for some reason. But OPUS has it's issues too at

times.. For one, OPUS has a good horizon look to it, the way it adjusts the vis or

whatever, but that same thing unnaturally obscures the stars when flying at high

altitudes at night. Many times you can barely see any stars at all.. I don't think ASN

will be doing that, but I'll have to try a few more night flights.

I know that overall ASN is almost surely the more accurate of the two when you

have weather fronts and such. Or at least that's always been one of the selling points

everyone talks about.. One quirk that bugs me, which both seem to have, is when you

have low vis close to the ground, but fairly clear above the muck.. I can be flying

through low level fog and such so thick you can hardly see a 1/4 mile.. Then you

fly up above it, and you see broken clouds and in many spots a clear view of the

ground. Not sure why they do that, when there is obviously a pretty solid overcast

at low levels, which should make it impossible to see the ground from above it..

And I think both programs have that issue. Must be some wx limitation with FSX or

something I guess.. I was testing this with the FA/18 yesterday as we had lots of

low level solid overcast fog. Totally overcast down low, I'd goose the engines and

shoot straight up above it, and loop around and look back down, and see plenty of

un-obscured earth below me.

And then I fired up OPUS and it was doing the same thing.. Solid fog low, and shoot up

high, and plenty of visibility of the ground below. :confused:

[pvarn]

"Then you fly up above it, and you see broken clouds and in many spots a clear view of the ground. Not sure why they do that,"

 

Yes, this a limitation of FSX in that OverCast (OC) is not really 100%. It's a repeating pattern that's placed in a grid and the texture shapes don't always match up at the joins creating "holes."

 

If you have a cray computer ;) ASN has a feature called "Enhanced Overcast" where two layers of OC are placed one over the top of another to reduce how often you can see through the holes since they do not always line up.

 

Since OC is a big frame rate eater anyway, and EOC adds yet another layer of frame eating clouds, the frame rate WILL drop with this feature.

 

I have no trouble living with the holes myself. Better than flying in stutterville.

[MBKHOU]

I figured it was some kind of FSX quirk, cuz I was fairly sure the wx programs makers had

noticed that, and would likely try to correct.. As ASN did with the enhanced overcast..

Yep, I've been leaving that off as my puter is only so-so.. And my video is not too manly

when it comes to dealing with thick layers of clouds.. :(

With most normal flights, it's no big issue as I climb out and through them, and off to

high altitudes. It's only when playing local scud runner and such that it can sometimes

seem peculiar if I happen to pop up above the overcast layer and suddenly see the gaps.

Overall ASN seems to be working pretty well, and the clouds overall are looking fine.

I was just being ultra picky about certain situations mostly pertaining to high altitude.

I was playing around with the FA/18 over the Palm Springs area yesterday, and things

were looking pretty good, with a good horizon look at high altitudes.

The radar in the NGX is working great so far, and that was worth the price in itself.

The gain, tilt, auto, wx, wx-t, etc functions all work pretty much as real world as far as I

can tell.