I imagine that'll be your head bouncing Diego, not actual wing! I doubt no amount of blue pills could make a Seneca wing stiffer.....but I could be wrong.

Indeed I've flown Senecas through moderate turbulence (found myself under a Cb west of KPBI over the canals once) - but I've never seen the wings flex at all (sure the flaps rattle when deployed, but thats about it)...so I'm not to sure if Carenado is being entirely realistic in that regard.

XP10 bug has set the bar for flex - we need to see total wingtip to fuse flapping action. Nothing less will do now so FSL still has a lot of work to do, or a bug to insert  :Big Grin:

The A320 has inner and outer wing tanks.  There is fuel trapped in the outer wing tanks to reduce the wing bending moment by design.  Fuel is used in the FADEC to cool the integrated drive generators (IDG) and to cool engine oil. Not all fuel is used by the engine and some is returned to the outer tanks.  When each fuel content in the inner tanks is down to 1650 pounds, the content of the outer tanks are drained by means of transfer valves to the inner tanks for use.  In addition there is a load alleviation function (LAF) on many A320 airplanes which relieves wing structure loads in turbulence by rapid movement of ailerons and spoilers 4 and 5.  This scheme of design sums up the reason for the reduced wing flexing in the A320 series airplanes.

 

Kurt Gamnig

From a "pilot" point of view, I think wing flex has bigger effect on the realism factor on GA planes. Nothing puts me off more than looking out the side windows of the Carenado Seneca or Milviz C310, and not see those wings bounce in turbulence.

 

It's not so much a "wing flex" as more of a "bounce". Regardless of what you call it, it's those tiny visual queues that add to the flying experience.

 

Diego.

 

If a Cessna or Seneca's wings started to flap I might either try to get to the ground as quickly as possible while staying just above stall speed or if I have a chute I would make a jump for it.

From a "pilot" point of view, I think wing flex has bigger effect on the realism factor on GA planes. Nothing puts me off more than looking out the side windows of the Carenado Seneca or Milviz C310, and not see those wings bounce in turbulence.

 

It's not so much a "wing flex" as more of a "bounce". Regardless of what you call it, it's those tiny visual queues that add to the flying experience.

 

Diego.

Spot on. I couldn't care less about wing flex in a tube. I'm concentrating on flying and navigating a highly accurate simulation from inside the cockpit! Effects of turbulence on a smaller aircraft I can fully appreciate as it would feel much more immersive. I guess its good to that it'll be included though for those who are just looking for nice exterior modeling etc.

I find this discussion so funny. It's totally fine to decide that wing bounce, flex, whatever you want to call it, isn't worth the resources needed to animate it (though I know some people will disagree with me). But the people who insist--repeatedly!--that it's barely visible on A320s...

 

Maybe it's just that I've been flying on A320s whose wings are actually about to fall off, but trust me, it's been plenty noticeable. And I've flown on a lot of A320s in the past few years. Maybe the bounce is slightly less extreme than on a 737, I guess, but still very, very visible in turbulence.

 

Again, I actually don't care! I fly the AXE and completely forget about the fact that the wings don't bounce. But if I DO look, something's off. And I honestly can't understand all the people saying otherwise. Maybe it IS me that's crazy--imagining the wings moving in the real thing?

 

I barely see much flex in the A320s wings in reality myself, so for me if omitting it from the visual model will save on resources and make the flight smoother frameratewise, then by all means do away with it. No point it going all out for realism when the most basic realistic factor in a flight (fluidity) is sacrificed in favor of eye candy that's barely noticable in reality.

 

Same goes for others like the DC9, A300/310, CRJ, ERJ, and older GA all-metal aircraft.

 

Photos/videos (particularly those taken from a quartering angle, ie wings close to the edge of the frame) taken with a zoom lens are prone to being distorted slightly by spherical aberration, which makes the curve more pronounced than it actually is.

I find this discussion so funny. It's totally fine to decide that wing bounce, flex, whatever you want to call it, isn't worth the resources needed to animate it (though I know some people will disagree with me). But the people who insist--repeatedly!--that it's barely visible on A320s...

 

Maybe it's just that I've been flying on A320s whose wings are actually about to fall off, but trust me, it's been plenty noticeable. And I've flown on a lot of A320s in the past few years. Maybe the bounce is slightly less extreme than on a 737, I guess, but still very, very visible in turbulence.

 

Again, I actually don't care! I fly the AXE and completely forget about the fact that the wings don't bounce. But if I DO look, something's off. And I honestly can't understand all the people saying otherwise. Maybe it IS me that's crazy--imagining the wings moving in the real thing?

 

I think many confuse wing flex with the natural tendency of the wing to bend on takeoff which happens but it does only happen mostly to a small degree. Personally, the flex for just that purpose IE, for the sake of it is not important to me. I'm not interested personally in the modeling of wingflex so that on takeoff it bends a little for visual purposes. What I personally like to see is how the wing reacts when for example you launch into a 30 degree climb and a huge amount of lift force is actively bending the wing much further than normal or when turbulence forces are interrupting lift etc. The wing also would exhibit such behavior in say a stall where the absence of lift causes the wing to actually bend the opposite way under it's own weight. This behavior is something we would expect to see in any aircraft because we know if you have any long and thin composite, it will bend, even under it's own weight.

 

I can totally understand a developers choice not to model wingflex but I would hope they would reconsider on the basis that the absolute BEST products go into the extremes of detail, into the physics! The PMDG modelling of the 777 is simply incredible because it is not just visual wingflex at all it is a highly accurate and dynamic simulation of the wing loading of a 777 wing. The A320 wing is subjected to the exact same forces and bending moments although it does have a much more rigid wing and clearly isn't as obvious but in terms of a simulation and immersion, to miss out the effect of air on a wing is quite off putting. To ignore that will always in my opinion detract the quality of the product because a completely static wing in a fully powered, empty aircraft that is in a 35 degree climb does not make sense.

on the basis that the absolute BEST products go into the extremes of detail, into the physics!

 

Physics and Wing Flex.... They don't match.

 

Animations are one of those things that lag behind in sim. You see the lift, than the flex. Not quite physics right there.

 

a highly accurate and dynamic simulation of the wing loading of a 777 wing. 

 

Lets just say I have a second opinion on that bold phrase.

 

empty aircraft that is in a 35 degree climb 

Airbus and 35 degrees of climb.... mmmm.

 

 

and at the end of it all, makes me wonder if your cockpit is the window seat.

Physics and Wing Flex.... They don't match.

 

Animations are one of those things that lag behind in sim. You see the lift, than the flex. Not quite physics right there.

 

 

Lets just say I have a second opinion on that bold phrase.

 

Airbus and 35 degrees of climb.... mmmm.

 

 

and at the end of it all, makes me wonder if your cockpit is the window seat.

 

Out of normal law in an empty aircraft I'm sure you could achieve such an AOA, obviously the protections limit this to 30 degrees so it would require mode degradation. I'm more talking of a test scenario where lift would be at it's greatest. I'm sure Airbus test pilots have attempted to push it beyond that. I understand what your saying though Joshua, animations do lag and always will but the animation still to a degree represents what happens in real life which for me adds to the main thing here which is immersion.

 

I do only experience things from the window and I think most people buying FS addons are also too very used to the window seat so it is very natural to load up FS and view things from the wing now and then. Pilots themselves after all do not see the aircraft from a 3rd person perspective so there is really in essence no need for a model at all. I think many like me want to get into the systems but they also like to immerse themselves in the simulation of things beyond the cockpit. Immersion is the key word I am after and I think a demonstration of the mechanics of the wing is something that adds to immersion, just my opinion anyway.

 

I am not however talking really about the Airbus X here of course, it is just my opinion in general. The Airbus X is a great product and it certainly did not affect my choice to buy it.

Senecas, C310s, C402s, even the little Duchess have wing "bounce". Here is a video of a C310 in relatively smooth air with visible wing "bounce".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJBZN5Ri0lk

 

Note that the cameras are fixed to the plane and it's not the camera moving that makes the wing bounce... Also note the distance of the camera from the wing and the wide angle effect of the GoPro reduces the visible movement on the video. With quite a few hours in piston twins like the Duchess, Seneca, 310 and 402, I can assure you, the wing "bounce" is real and quite noticeable from inside and in turbulent air, and when you add 300lb tip tanks on either side, well they will even "bounce" while taxiing

 

It IS these little visual queues that add to the realism. I had a chance to test out the A2A Archer, and the way the needles vibrate and the cabin shakes makes a world of a difference. Compare that to the Carenado Archer which I find dull because it just feels stiff like it's taken a full bottle of "little blue pills"

For me, it's almost that now I've associated it. I've seen the awkwardly flat wings so now they stand out to me. As soon as I think of the A320 in FSX, I think of a lack of wingflex. The only reason, though, that I made this, was to stop the whole "there is no wingflex thing". Of course it's up to dev's what they want to do. I'm not one, so there's no right for me to judge. But to say there is no wingflex on the type is clearly not true. Any photos or videos you see show it. I was just on a 320 two weeks ago, and I was attentively watching the wings, and how they bounced in turbulence and changed angles depending on their loading. Just the shape of them looks off when in the air. It's just too bad that we haven't been able to see that yet, because it is possible, I just have no idea to what extent. For all I know, there are added complexities to modeling the 320 specifically that render performance with wingflex unfeasible. I have no idea.

FSLab, our last chance!