Wake Turbulance?

[dresoccer4]

Hi all - just wondering how wake turbulence is doing lately; if it's been updated or changed at all in latest version? Is it more realistic now depending on aircraft size?

[BIGNEWY]

16 hours ago, dresoccer4 said:

Hi all - just wondering how wake turbulence is doing lately; if it's been updated or changed at all in latest version? Is it more realistic now depending on aircraft size?

Hi, wake turbulence has always been dependant on aircraft size. If you think there is an issue please attach a short track replay example so we can check it. 

thank you

[motoadve]

I think it is very well modeled in DCS, feels exactly like in real life.

[dresoccer4]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, wake turbulence has always been dependant on aircraft size. If you think there is an issue please attach a short track replay example so we can check it. 

thank you

 

3 hours ago, motoadve said:

I think it is very well modeled in DCS, feels exactly like in real life.

I started a thread a couple years ago about how, as an example, a powerless p-51 (a glider) caused enough wake turbulence to completely flip a spitfire upside down. and the feedback I got both professional and non-professional pilots all seemed to agree it was overdone. so i turned off the WT setting for a while to see if there would be any updates or changes in the future. 

so that's why i started this thread to see if there had been any changes. no worries if not, just wanted to check 

UPDATE: also this thread has feedback from real world fighter pilots also saying that small planes/jets are creating too much WT: 

All opinion, obviously, but I tend to trust IRL fighter pilot's opinions over my own

Edited October 26, 2023 by dresoccer4

[Art-J]

Wait a minute. So was it almost upside down or 30'ish degrees roll as you described in your old thread? Can't be both. I never experienced the former in DCS, I do experience the latter, but it is more of a mild annoyance during gunnery rather than a flight safety issue.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Art-J

[ARM505]

I turned it off as it felt far too extreme to me (having hit many wakes in real life, light, medium, heavy etc, including my own after precise level turns).

It's a tough one to call: *my* take on it (and like....well, you know what, everybody has an opinion) is that the actual modelling of a wake encounter *is* accurate-ish, BUT in real life, wakes are 'broken up' more quickly by the more chaotic, natural motion of air which is ALL moving, even slightly, compared to DCS's rendition of the atmosphere, which, apart from wind, is atom-perfect (ie. there is no natural churning of the atmosphere, it's all perfectly smooth, and turbulence in the sim is just a mathematical, zero sum simulation, unlike real air masses - DCS cannot, after all, model every cubic centimeter of the atmosphere, it has to abstract some things). The modelling they've done on the air mass after an aircraft passes through it was indeed VERY impressive though.

So in DCS, you get a more 'concentrated' and intense burst of wake vortex IMHO?.....hard to describe.

Some background: I fly heavy jets out of one of the busiest airports in the world (watch me start swearing when somebody mentions 'enhanced wake turbulence separation' - the only 'enhanced' part about it is that the chance of hitting somebodies wake is 'enhanced') - sure, hitting a heavies' wake in another heavy isn't the same is being in a light aircraft (and a fighter, pulling G's is probably chewing the air up a LOT), but you still get a sense of the strength of the air movement after a 300 ton airliner ploughs through it a couple of miles ahead of you. And to me, because of what I've felt, DCS feels to 'sharp' and the result of wake is too much.....

My 2c.....and I absolutely do not consider my opinion more important or anything - ED have far more time invested in the maths behind this by people much brighter than me, that's for sure....so who knows. But I do turn it off

[rob10]

23 minutes ago, ARM505 said:

I turned it off as it felt far too extreme to me (having hit many wakes in real life, light, medium, heavy etc, including my own after precise level turns).

It's a tough one to call: *my* take on it (and like....well, you know what, everybody has an opinion) is that the actual modelling of a wake encounter *is* accurate-ish, BUT in real life, wakes are 'broken up' more quickly by the more chaotic, natural motion of air which is ALL moving, even slightly, compared to DCS's rendition of the atmosphere, which, apart from wind, is atom-perfect (ie. there is no natural churning of the atmosphere, it's all perfectly smooth, and turbulence in the sim is just a mathematical, zero sum simulation, unlike real air masses - DCS cannot, after all, model every cubic centimeter of the atmosphere, it has to abstract some things). The modelling they've done on the air mass after an aircraft passes through it was indeed VERY impressive though.

So in DCS, you get a more 'concentrated' and intense burst of wake vortex IMHO?.....hard to describe.

Some background: I fly heavy jets out of one of the busiest airports in the world (watch me start swearing when somebody mentions 'enhanced wake turbulence separation' - the only 'enhanced' part about it is that the chance of hitting somebodies wake is 'enhanced') - sure, hitting a heavies' wake in another heavy isn't the same is being in a light aircraft (and a fighter, pulling G's is probably chewing the air up a LOT), but you still get a sense of the strength of the air movement after a 300 ton airliner ploughs through it a couple of miles ahead of you. And to me, because of what I've felt, DCS feels to 'sharp' and the result of wake is too much.....

My 2c.....and I absolutely do not consider my opinion more important or anything - ED have far more time invested in the maths behind this by people much brighter than me, that's for sure....so who knows. But I do turn it off

That was a well thought out and said post.  Thanks for the interesting perspective.

[Hiob]

42 minutes ago, ARM505 said:

I turned it off as it felt far too extreme to me (having hit many wakes in real life, light, medium, heavy etc, including my own after precise level turns).

It's a tough one to call: *my* take on it (and like....well, you know what, everybody has an opinion) is that the actual modelling of a wake encounter *is* accurate-ish, BUT in real life, wakes are 'broken up' more quickly by the more chaotic, natural motion of air which is ALL moving, even slightly, compared to DCS's rendition of the atmosphere, which, apart from wind, is atom-perfect (ie. there is no natural churning of the atmosphere, it's all perfectly smooth, and turbulence in the sim is just a mathematical, zero sum simulation, unlike real air masses - DCS cannot, after all, model every cubic centimeter of the atmosphere, it has to abstract some things). The modelling they've done on the air mass after an aircraft passes through it was indeed VERY impressive though.

So in DCS, you get a more 'concentrated' and intense burst of wake vortex IMHO?.....hard to describe.

Some background: I fly heavy jets out of one of the busiest airports in the world (watch me start swearing when somebody mentions 'enhanced wake turbulence separation' - the only 'enhanced' part about it is that the chance of hitting somebodies wake is 'enhanced') - sure, hitting a heavies' wake in another heavy isn't the same is being in a light aircraft (and a fighter, pulling G's is probably chewing the air up a LOT), but you still get a sense of the strength of the air movement after a 300 ton airliner ploughs through it a couple of miles ahead of you. And to me, because of what I've felt, DCS feels to 'sharp' and the result of wake is too much.....

My 2c.....and I absolutely do not consider my opinion more important or anything - ED have far more time invested in the maths behind this by people much brighter than me, that's for sure....so who knows. But I do turn it off

Yeah, I agree. Good post. That said, there is a limit to what can be simulated with a given generation of computers. Enabling wake turbulence already can hit the performance hard, depending on the amount of aircraft around you. I fear enhancing it in a way you described could be a big task.

Don‘t get me wrong - the „liveliness“ of the air in DCS (better the lack of) is one of my bigger „gripes“ with it. And the wakes play somewhat into that.

[motoadve]

I dont fly jets in the game or in real life, I do fly warbirds in DCS,  and also  IRL and do combat simulations , wake turbulence in DCS from warbirds seem spot ON to me, here is an example IRL flying.

Not too different from what I experience in DCS.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by motoadve

[draconus]

On 10/27/2023 at 6:17 PM, ARM505 said:

It's a tough one to call: *my* take on it (and like....well, you know what, everybody has an opinion) is that the actual modelling of a wake encounter *is* accurate-ish, BUT in real life, wakes are 'broken up' more quickly by the more chaotic, natural motion of air which is ALL moving, even slightly, compared to DCS's rendition of the atmosphere, which, apart from wind, is atom-perfect (ie. there is no natural churning of the atmosphere, it's all perfectly smooth, and turbulence in the sim is just a mathematical, zero sum simulation, unlike real air masses - DCS cannot, after all, model every cubic centimeter of the atmosphere, it has to abstract some things). The modelling they've done on the air mass after an aircraft passes through it was indeed VERY impressive though.

Hope you know, that apart from wind and wake turbulence, there's also turbulence setting, apparently very rarely used and set in missions giving the feeling of flying smooth as on rails.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

there's also turbulence setting

Hmm I only ever noticed that at low altitude. I tend to use turbulence in my missions, but I have no knowledge of what a realistic value is, whereas I try to use real weather maps for specific regions to set accurate wind speeds and directions. Perhaps the turbulence is also there at higher altitudes but I never noticed due to the difference in wind speeds?
Perhaps someone who is more versed in meteorology can enlighten me...

[draconus]

Manual just says:

Quote

TURBULENCE. You may set air turbulence at 0.1 m/s increments at ground level. Turbulence will then decrease as altitude increases.

It mostly means wind shear and gusts deviating from the set winds but it also affects hovering helicopters. Here's dev's explanation: