The new A340 does not appear to respond to turbulence, nor does it seem to generate any internally, likely due to its external flight model implementation. While developers such as A2A (for example, with the Comanche) also use external flight models, their aircraft still properly interpret and react to simulator-driven turbulence.

To verify this, I conducted a controlled test using historical weather with severe turbulence conditions. I compared the A340 against aircraft from iniBuilds, PMDG, and Fenix under identical settings. All of these aircraft exhibited significant movement, as expected in severe turbulence. However, the A340 remained completely unaffected and showed no visible response.

You can test by yourself and its 100 producible since it really does not move at all.

Please consider fixing this as a priority, as it effectively breaks the simulation. Turbulence is a core element of everyday flying, and without it, the experience feels incomplete and unrealistic.

Also noticed the same. At first I thought that this big bird is just really stable in the air but quickly noticed that independent of the wheather conditions, it does not react at all to turbulence. Please fix this with your upcoming updates as it is essential for a realistic sim experience.

This is absolutely true, and I still can’t wrap my head around how no one noticed this during testing, including ToLiss, because this is not exactly subtle. You only need one flight to realize it and a second one to confirm it. The flight model behaves as it should, but it doesn’t seem to be affected by any conditions other than wind direction and wind speed. Leaving aside the fact that the weather in MSFS is quite a meme, there’s a huge difference between that and absolute nothingness. Where are the thermals? Where is the cloud turbulence? Where is the CAT?

This is a €70 product (a price which as far as I understand, will increase soon), and it lacks the most basic features that any default aircraft has. This is not acceptable under any circumstances. An exquisite flight model and rich system depth are of no use to me if I’m flying inside a vacuum chamber. If I wanted to fly on rails, I would reinstall P3D. I hope these issues are addressed in the next patch, because this makes absolutely no sense. This is a huge oversight.

14 hours ago, Asturr said:

This is absolutely true, and I still can’t wrap my head around how no one noticed this during testing, including ToLiss, because this is not exactly subtle. You only need one flight to realize it and a second one to confirm it. The flight model behaves as it should, but it doesn’t seem to be affected by any conditions other than wind direction and wind speed. Leaving aside the fact that the weather in MSFS is quite a meme, there’s a huge difference between that and absolute nothingness. Where are the thermals? Where is the cloud turbulence? Where is the CAT?

This is a €70 product (a price which as far as I understand, will increase soon), and it lacks the most basic features that any default aircraft has. This is not acceptable under any circumstances. An exquisite flight model and rich system depth are of no use to me if I’m flying inside a vacuum chamber. If I wanted to fly on rails, I would reinstall P3D. I hope these issues are addressed in the next patch, because this makes absolutely no sense. This is a huge oversight.

Definitely Astur

And yet no answer from any dev...

On 3/25/2026 at 11:29 PM, prdemel said:

And yet no answer from any dev...

I wish to see a fix for this other wise i wont buy anything again from toliss aerosoft.

Flying right now with my buddy , both using ACTIVE SKY same paramaters , he is just 5 miles ahead and he is using PMDG 777 300er , we have severe turbulence reported by AS and other wx companion , 29 March, 2100Z - 0100Z Active, 15000 ft - 36000 ft Severe

WSSP32 LEMM 292048 LECB SIGMET 24 VALID 292100/300100 LEVA- LECB BARCELONA FIR/UIR SEV TURB FCST WI N4225 E00123 - N38 W00126 - N3609 W00152 - N3824 E00343 - N4103 E00433 - N4158 E00428 - N4225 E00123 FL150/360 MOV SE NC= He is moving all over the place and my aircraft A340 from Aerosoft its no moving at all.... even my own active sky its showing in debug mode severe turbulence right now... It is a shame and please im asking for a fix as soon as possible. Its so frustrating that we have paid for an aircraft so much and we lack of turbulence . What a shame seriusly.

I agree, we need this bird to react to turbulence. I imagine it to be tricky to implement though with an external physics simulation. I'm not sure about the update frequency and accuracy of the sim variables when it comes to turbulence, especially with external weather add-ons. But since ToLiss was able to implement the complicated main gear physics with a quite interesting hack, I'm confident that this will be solved, too! 😉

On 3/30/2026 at 3:49 PM, Fangzahn said:

I agree, we need this bird to react to turbulence. I imagine it to be tricky to implement though with an external physics simulation. I'm not sure about the update frequency and accuracy of the sim variables when it comes to turbulence, especially with external weather add-ons. But since ToLiss was able to implement the complicated main gear physics with a quite interesting hack, I'm confident that this will be solved, too! 😉

Its a must , thanks for the support FANGZAHN

On 3/30/2026 at 3:49 PM, Fangzahn said:

I agree, we need this bird to react to turbulence. I imagine it to be tricky to implement though with an external physics simulation. I'm not sure about the update frequency and accuracy of the sim variables when it comes to turbulence, especially with external weather add-ons. But since ToLiss was able to implement the complicated main gear physics with a quite interesting hack, I'm confident that this will be solved, too! 😉

I wouldn’t keep my hopes too high about this, because ToLiss doesn’t even believe there’s a problem and they’re fully convinced that turbulence does affect the aircraft. There’s already been a discussion about this on the Aerosoft Discord. And as the saying goes: There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

8 hours ago, Asturr said:

I wouldn’t keep my hopes too high about this, because ToLiss doesn’t even believe there’s a problem and they’re fully convinced that turbulence does affect the aircraft. There’s already been a discussion about this on the Aerosoft Discord. And as the saying goes: There’s none so blind as those who will not see.

How is that possible if it does not affect the aircraft ? How can you say the opposite when it is not true ? They only have to tested , there is no debate about this.

The most viewed topic and liked and no Dev answered to this, is it possible to show please a litle bt more of interest please ? This bug is not the kind of to look away....

@Tom

It seems like Aerosoft has big lack communicating with customers. I never seen anyone from developres to react on community posts, requests or issues. Only Tom sometimes responds to some posts but many are still stuck without answers. I tried to contact Toliss directly but was given answer that all support is entirly on Aerosoft side. So we literaly have no support. I give you another example: I created a ticket on 26 of March but still didn't get any answers on it. So pity that such a product with great possibilities left unsupported.

@Tom

And still no response after 18 days, Im going to talk to paypal and show them the proof that they are not even offering support. Maybe thats a good reason for a refund. What a shame of a business and of course if people ask me about my opinion on the new A340 i wont recomend it at all.

I could see occasional unrealistic bump, and was wondering is this is to do with the Asobo turbulence logic, until I found this post. It explains why the A346 i flying "on rails".. Gotta be implemented better, that's for sure...

And still nothing

Hello,

I have spoken to Toliss regarding this post. Here is the current information regarding this:

Currently, there is limited data available from MSFS when it comes to weather, the current data that is available is read every frame and applied to the flight model. For the data that is available, the aircraft responds accordingly, but given the limited data not all situations are covered. This is something that can likely be improved in the future should there be a path for the data.

Furthermore, there appears to be an issue in general with turbulence in general in MSFS 2024 specifically, where even in the most extreme conditions there is no turbulence on the flight model. This is most likely the issue those of you in this thread are seeing. You can read more about here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/still-no-in-cloud-turbulence-in-live-wx-2024/

Tom, thanks for the feedback. I doubt, however, that the issue you linked from the MS forum is in play here. That topic is about in-cloud turbulence after all.

Yesterday I was at a local meeting where 2 people flew the 340, and the others (5) flew PMDG 777. All real weather, no weather addons. The 777 bounced along nicely, but the A340S were on rails. Not a single burp. As Microsoft does not seem to be planning to change the weather API any time soon, is Tolis planning to bring the flight model into the simulator so it reacts to the environment?

7 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Tom, thanks for the feedback. I doubt, however, that the issue you linked from the MS forum is in play here. That topic is about in-cloud turbulence after all.

Yesterday I was at a local meeting where 2 people flew the 340, and the others (5) flew PMDG 777. All real weather, no weather addons. The 777 bounced along nicely, but the A340S were on rails. Not a single burp. As Microsoft does not seem to be planning to change the weather API any time soon, is Tolis planning to bring the flight model into the simulator so it reacts to the environment?

Thanks

9 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Yesterday I was at a local meeting where 2 people flew the 340, and the others (5) flew PMDG 777. All real weather, no weather addons. The 777 bounced along nicely, but the A340S were on rails. Not a single burp.

For this data to be more helpful, I would need the following:

• Were all users running SU4, or were some running the SU5 Beta?

• What were all users turbulence settings set to?

• How many, if any, users were using chaseplane? Were they using the same profile effects?

• The same question as above but for FSRealistic(+)

If the route was also completed less than 24 hours ago, I can specifically test it on that route since live weather will still be available.

--

For other users in this thread, and In order for us to further test this to see if there is an issue, the following questions are important in helping us:

• Are you running SU4, or the SU5 Beta?

• What is your Turbulence setting currently set to? (Settings → Assistances → Turbulence)

• Are you using the Modern flight model? (Settings → General → Flight Model → Flight Model)

• Are you using ChasePlane, and are you using it in combination with FSRealistic+?

• Are you using an external weather program, such as ActiveSky?

For Tom:
I mostly have been running SU4 till about a week ago when I switched to SU5 beta, however I've only flown the a340 once since then.
Turbulence setting is set to low as recommended by other devs, personally I find it alot more realistic especially at airports (albiet the a340 cannot operate at) such as at madeira when the sim generates unrealistic downdraft when passing the sea wall, if you'd like (it only happens in realistic turbulence) I can test this with the a340 and see if it does that.
Not using chaseplane or Fsrealistic
External weather program, if realturb counts then yes, however it does not function with the a340 despite it running.

20 hours ago, Tom said:

For other users in this thread, and In order for us to further test this to see if there is an issue, the following questions are important in helping us:

• Are you running SU4, or the SU5 Beta?

• What is your Turbulence setting currently set to? (Settings → Assistances → Turbulence)

• Are you using the Modern flight model? (Settings → General → Flight Model → Flight Model)

• Are you using ChasePlane, and are you using it in combination with FSRealistic+?

• Are you using an external weather program, such as ActiveSky?

1) Tested on both, SU4 and SU5, same result
2) Turbulence is set to realistic
3) Yes
4) Yes to Chaseplane, no to FSRealistic

(By the way, I know why you’re asking this question because I saw a topic here, and as far as ChasePlane is concerned, a bug that shakes the camera randomly has absolutely nothing to do with whether the aircraft itself moves or not. We’re talking about the aircraft not being affected by weather phenomena, not anything related to the camera. The camera shaking is completely irrelevant in this discussion. In fact, the bug you’re referring to when asking this question has been fixed in the latest version, and it could be mitigated previously by adjusting the camera smoothness settings. ChasePlane is irrelevant to this issue)

5) No, I use the sim default weather engine.

That said, what you mention about the flight model seems more like an implementation issue on your side because, as far as I understand, FSLabs also uses a completely external FM and the aircraft responds perfectly to each and every input provided by the simulator, just like all the other aircraft where the FM runs internally. The same applies to A2A before they changed it to be compatible with Xbox. In any case, regardless of that, if with the current implementation you’re not able to solve this issue, just change it as Mathijs suggests and that’s it, nobody is going to die because of it. Apart from that, and as Mathijs correctly pointed out, the issue you linked from the MSFS Forums has absolutely nothing to do with this. This aircraft does not move even a millimeter with any weather phenomenon in the simulator other than wind speed and its heading, not only in cloud turbulence (which was already tweaked in SU5 and, as I said before, the problem is still there), which clearly suggests that this is not the issue. As I mentioned above, this airplane is not affected by thermals, nor by CAT, updrafts, downdrafts and thermals are completely nonexistent, etc. It’s a brick flying on rails. It’s as if the wings were disconnected from the main body of the aircraft, but of course, the wings don’t move even 1 mm either (and don’t get me started on that wingflex that moves like the zombies from DayZ mod).

Right now, this aircraft is the most expensive one currently available for MSFS, so as you can understand, the performance has to match that, and this behavior of the FM (or rather lack thereof) is absolutely unacceptable.

22 hours ago, Tom said:

For this data to be more helpful, I would need the following:

• Were all users running SU4, or were some running the SU5 Beta?

• What were all users turbulence settings set to?

• How many, if any, users were using chaseplane? Were they using the same profile effects?

• The same question as above but for FSRealistic(+)

If the route was also completed less than 24 hours ago, I can specifically test it on that route since live weather will still be available.

--

For other users in this thread, and In order for us to further test this to see if there is an issue, the following questions are important in helping us:

• Are you running SU4, or the SU5 Beta?

• What is your Turbulence setting currently set to? (Settings → Assistances → Turbulence)

• Are you using the Modern flight model? (Settings → General → Flight Model → Flight Model)

• Are you using ChasePlane, and are you using it in combination with FSRealistic+?

• Are you using an external weather program, such as ActiveSky?

. most SU4, I was on SU5 beta in the A340
. As far as I know, all set to Low turbulence
. No Chaseplane as far as I know
. Certainly not FSRealistic
. It's longer than 24 hours ago, so no go on that.