FSX-MS A320 Series Wingflex (Once and for All)

[abasa12 38]

Simmers,

 

I know I'm committing forum-suicide by posting this, but I've been thinking this for a while, and it's just my opinion. I must also say that this doesn't apply to any one specific aircraft, just the series as a general (this applies to FSL, AS, etc...). The pictures are from Aerosoft's Airbus X Extended (an amazing aircraft, by the way), but this is generally targeted.

 

Wingflex. Yes, I know (I can already hear the groans as I write this). It's been brought up and shot down so many times, it's ridiculous. And don't worry - I know that I'm not really any better. I have no right requesting features that have already been denied. I just wanted to put it out there, the reason that I see that there is so much confusion on the topic. I must also say that, yes, I have been on an A320/A321, multiple times. This is not purely conjecture, but experience and observations. Anyway, while many are not deterred in their flying by the lack of this, some, including myself, do indeed notice this. What I think to be the problem is not wingflex as a whole, but wingtip flex. The major portion of the A320 wing is very rigid and solid, I agree - especially when compared to the 737NG, A330, or 777. The tip, however, does move. With lift, turbulence, and with usual forces, the A320 wingtip is nowhere near as solid as the rest of the wing, and is therefore what people notice. As such, when in flight, where the wing's gradual curve should be one eventually leading upwards, on the 320XT (among other simulations), the curve is one downwards, due to the tip of the wing. Photo credits for the left image go to Helicopterpilot16, though in the image attached, I think I've made it clear. Both pictures were taken on approach. One of a Delta A320, and the other is in the sim, a Turkish A321. And again, I do realize the inconsistencies. The angles were slightly different, and the aircraft's angle may have been a titch different, though I think it makes the point I was trying to. Although the majority of the wing is rigid, the tip flexes up in the real world aircraft, thus giving the wing an appearance of flexing, whereas in the sim, the downward-facing wingtip makes the wing seem unsimulated, to some degree. This, for me, is not a "make-or-break" issue, as I know that this likely will not get solved in later versions. However, it needs to be said that claims for wingflex are not completely unfounded, and it does, occasionally, detract from the flying experience. Regardless, lift-wise, the video below was filmed on a departure last summer (I took the video) on an A320 from Ottawa. I've sped the video up, hopefully making the flex in the wingtip more visible..
 
I don't really know what this will do, and I know that it's kind of ridiculous that I'm making another claim like this. I just wanted to put my opinion out there, and I know that there's an entourage of groans and "not again!"s coming. I know I deserve them.
 

All comments (good and critical) appreciated,

 

-abasa12

 

 

[GHarrall 494]

If its there or not there.....its not enough IMHO to warrant the resources needed to do the animation and the effect on FPS.

[TomEDDW 1]

The project Airbus has quite a good wingflex.

Don't think it a big hit on FPS though...

[z06z33 763]

I never cared about wing flex when I'm flying I'm in the cockpit. If getting rid of it saves FPS I say get rid of it.

[GHarrall 494]

_{The project Airbus has quite a good wingflex.}

_{Don't think it a big hit on FPS though...}

 

It also doesnt have all the systems to render that the Airbus X has either.....

[mwilk 1,106]

You can sit in the cargo bin of an A320 while they're boarding passengers and see a certain amount of wingflex even while sitting at the gate. I doubt that the flight crew sees it though.

[MachTwo 386]

I'll answer, on behalf of all of us at FSL, once and for all...:smile:

 

The wings of course do flex slightly with aerodynamic load, but not enough to warrant the performance penalties of implementing such animations inside FSX.

[MarkRey 16]

Bit of a minor but pet peeve of mine. Even after transitioning from 2d/wv to vc only flying years ago, board stiff wings still irk me just a tad - I can't stand to look at them even the 0.1% of the time I still venture outside in flight. Like the OP I too spent many flight hours watching the A32x wing as a passenger. Just like the 737NG, that thing is alive both on the ground and in the air, it's a large, heavy moving surface beyond the engine pylon.

 

Yes, yes a thousand times yes I fully understand any developer's decision to eliminate the feature to save resources. I'm not a modeller and have no clue what it takes to build a 3d model. But I still think it generally unfortunate in the general scheme of modeling advancement that a feature first introduced (quite well) way back on even fs9 freeware, is now (increasingly?) abandoned - it's like a step back to fs98 in visual modeling.

 

Adding to the confusion of admittedly ignorant consumers like myself, only some developers at the top tier consider wing animation unworkable today. Others seem to have no issue producing fps friendly (enough) models with considerable system depth as well.

 

End of the day, I agree it's not a show stopper, but in my subjective opinion, it adds to my simulated experience of flying something lifelike, just like tilting bogies, compressing struts,, and moving control surfaces, along with a host of other external goodies that are also never 'seen' from the simulated cockpit  

[John_Tavendale 453]

I'll answer, on behalf of all of us at FSL, once and for all... :smile:

 

The wings of course do flex slightly with aerodynamic load, but not enough to warrant the performance penalties of implementing such animations inside FSX.

 

The stiff wings on the AXE model do look odd. The flex on the real aeroplane is noticeable enough. So does that mean we're not going to see wingflex on the FSL A320?

 

I can't imagine wing flex causes much of a performance hit... I think the animation is as important as animated wheels rotating.

[Alec 370]

When you're simulating an Airbus with the entire system to a fidelity never before seeing in any personal computer, I accept that they will need those extra 5fps that was going to be allocated to a silly movement of the wing that 90% of the people won't be noticing, and instead implement that on something useful for the simulation.

[abasa12 38]

Bit of a minor but pet peeve of mine. Even after transitioning from 2d/wv to vc only flying years ago, board stiff wings still irk me just a tad - I can't stand to look at them even the 0.1% of the time I still venture outside in flight. Like the OP I too spent many flight hours watching the A32x wing as a passenger. Just like the 737NG, that thing is alive both on the ground and in the air, it's a large, heavy moving surface beyond the engine pylon.

 

Yes, yes a thousand times yes I fully understand any developer's decision to eliminate the feature to save resources. I'm not a modeller and have no clue what it takes to build a 3d model. But I still think it generally unfortunate in the general scheme of modeling advancement that a feature first introduced (quite well) way back on even fs9 freeware, is now (increasingly?) abandoned - it's like a step back to fs98 in visual modeling.

 

Adding to the confusion of admittedly ignorant consumers like myself, only some developers at the top tier consider wing animation unworkable today. Others seem to have no issue producing fps friendly (enough) models with considerable system depth as well.

 

End of the day, I agree it's not a show stopper, but in my subjective opinion, it adds to my simulated experience of flying something lifelike, just like tilting bogies, compressing struts,, and moving control surfaces, along with a host of other external goodies that are also never 'seen' from the simulated cockpit  

 

That's what I was trying to say - it's not that big of a deal. and people generally have quite a large distaste whenever this is brought up, but it does contribute to the flying experience, and that is something worth saying. I think the picture demonstrates the point quite sufficiently, as well. For whatever it's worth.

Perhaps a better compromise would be having the wings not angled down, but rather permanently in a more raised position. As most of the time spent on the aircraft is in the air, this would make the flying experience better, and look more realistic in other elements. It's just that the wings are angled down that gets me to notice it at all.

[John_Tavendale 453]

When you're simulating an Airbus with the entire system to a fidelity never before seeing in any personal computer, I accept that they will need those extra 5fps that was going to be allocated to a silly movement of the wing that 90% of the people won't be noticing, and instead implement that on something useful for the simulation.

There is no way wingflex is going to account for 5fps.. it's also not going to take up resources when displaying the VC..

[Alec 370]

If the developers aren't willing to add this feature to their simulation, despite being something that seems to be the most important thing ever on an airbus simulation for some people, it's probably because it takes a lot more than we imagine of resource.

 

I have a different philosophy from a lot of people, but I don't care if they model the cabin, the toilet, the wing flex, rain on the windshield, but PLEASE, just give us the proper Airbus we've been waiting since FS was invented. That's the way I feel. I know many will think different.

[Nuno Pinto 1,394]

Funny thread.

[MarkRey 16]

despite being something that seems to be the most important thing ever

 

It's always unfortunate when people take a reasonably expressed preference and distort it to extremes to make a (therefore irrelevant) point. No one in this thread has said or inferred any such sentiment.

 

People are different sir, that is what makes this hobby the highly subjective, fun experience it is. By your expressed paradigm thus far, it would not be much of a stretch to assume you think PMDG aircraft, which simulate virtually every external animation imaginable simply for the sake of simulation accuracy, to be supremely 'silly'.