Sign in to follow this  
abasa12

A320 Series Wingflex (Once and for All)

Recommended Posts

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

 

post-42175-0-00777400-1397101234.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The project Airbus has quite a good wingflex.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That's the way I feel. I know many will think different."

 

It's in my previous post. I respect others, but when a developer say something can't be done for good reason, I think they know better than us what they're doing.

 

And i'm out of this topic! See ya

 

Edit: Forgot to say, I never said anyone on this topic is in the example I've given. It was just a generalization, some people are happy with just cool animations, for them getting the CaptainSim stuff is the best thing to do, for others, system is all they want, for them, a custom made simulator like PSX is the only thing that will make them happy. I'm much more toward the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, so am I. Once I 'sit' in a great vc surrounded by great ambient sounds, I forget everything else. For certain the dev knows better than us on the outside what they can or can't do, no question. But if I had a dollar for every time over the years a dev said 'can't' or 'sim limitation' only to have some other, or even the same dev find a way later on, I'd be Bill Gates  :P

 

Good flights!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I have merged the PA319 with the AXE and performance is even better than the AS model.

 

I of course agree with the OP and I'm firmly in the pro-wingflex camp because as an Aerospace Engineer it's really interesting to see how the wing reacts to aerodynamic forces. A wing that does not react in any way is not realistic for me. I have never noticed any real performance penalty and some models like the PMDG 777 and PA Airbus' all have wingflex but for me have no significant FPS penalty. Of course I am no developer but I think models just don't look right if you are launching into a steep climb and the wing looks exactly the same as it did on the ground.

 

With the single aisle Airbus' there is certainly a noticeable droop too with a fully fueled aircraft because of the weight of fuel in the tanks, this sort of thing just adds to the immersion for me but anyway it is obviously no deal breaker.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never noticed the lack of wingflex on the Airbus X, but then again, I don't think I've ever actually looked at the model of the plane while in flight. I've spent 100% of my time in the cockpit. I guess I'm a cockpit kind of sim pilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is natural for a first rate premium simulation like those from PMDG to include wing flex.  Simply because the real world aircraft cannot fly without this feature.  If the airbus has so little that it can hardly be seen, then it should not be a big FPS penalty to include in in the simulation, but it is a feature that adds to the "Wow" factor.

On the other hand, if the developer decides not to include it, as long as everything else is there, it would not discourage me from purchasing the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wingflex on a 777 is signifcantly more notcable too. I see why PMDG felt it was required in this model.

 

On an A320? The small amount is barely noticable. If developers deem it to be not worth the perf hit then thats fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The wingflex on a 777 is signifcantly more notcable too. I see why PMDG felt it was required in this model."

 

Just to clarify, my reference to PMDG was with particular regard to the 737NGX series. Like the T7 they took great pains to dynamically animate the wings both on the ground and in the air. IME the A320 wing is very similar in behavior.

 

Obviously the T7 is another order of magnitude, yet even then it can be argued that animated wings were unnecessary in a sim of that inward depth.

 

Again, it's not a showstopper as cockpit immersion is the paramount consideration - we are all in agreement on that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wingflex on a 777 is signifcantly more notcable too. I see why PMDG felt it was required in this model.

 

On an A320? The small amount is barely noticable. If developers deem it to be not worth the perf hit then thats fine with me.

 

I think it's noticeable enough on the 320. Just look at the picture. The angles are clearly different. Anyway, you're right - when it comes down to it it is a developer's choice whether or not to implement a feature, and just because I disagree with it's irrelevance, that doesn't change anything. What really irritates me, though, are people who are shot down and ridiculed for their opinions. That's the purpose of a forum - a moderated discussion on any given topic. I think that if one (like myself) feels as though wing flex is necessary and should be modeled, so be it. They are entitled to their opinion, just like those believing the opposite are. It's also annoying when people are humiliated for being pedantic, when, indeed, there is noticeable flexing of the wings. Maybe not as much as in a Boeing aircraft, but it is very clear that it is not nonexistent and completely unnoticeable - it is something not simulated. I noticed it myself quite quickly when flying, and then learned that it wasn't actually modeled, and not a fault of my computer.

 

Really, my point is that nobody should be mocked for an opinion, especially when that opinion is true in itself. Reiterating, though (because I know there are people who disagree with me, and rightfully so), that I understand that the A320 wingflex is not as great as that in a 737 or 777, and that if a developer really believes there to be performance issues (I can't see how that would be very significant, though I'm not a modeler and therefore have no right to make that claim), then it's their choice not to model it. But don't ostracize people who believe otherwise.

Oh, as a sidenote, I wasn't directing that at GHarrall. That was more directed at people over at another set of forums that shall not be named, though occasionally it becomes evident here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic can be argued into oblivion. The problem is that both developers have said that there decisions are final. There does not seem to be much use in continuing to argue over a topic that is not going to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the B757 probably has a similar wing flex as does the A320. The B75 wing is larger (and therefore would normally exhibit additional wing flex), but the age of the wing design and the materials it is made from gives it more limited flex than would a newer design of the same wing length (my opinions only, I have no scientific evidence to support this).

 

QW does a rendition of the B75 with limited wing-flex for FSX/P3D that does credit to the real thing. Maybe this is what the OP is referring to, as far as an order of magnitude for the A320.

 

Hopefully as P3D gets further away from FSX over time, especially if 64-bit comes, we might lose the need to trade-off visuals against system depth.

 

Thanks, Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this