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

[Alec 370]

"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.

[MarkRey 16]

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 

 

Good flights!

[G MIDY 101]

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.

[wims80 121]

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

[signmanbob 592]

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.

[GHarrall 494]

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.

[MarkRey 16]

"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.

[abasa12 38]

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.

[snowingairlines 20]

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.

[brucek 38]

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.

[MarkRey 16]

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.

 

Snow

 

This is a general discussion forum, there is every use in discussing our general likes, dislikes and preferences in a cordial and mutually respectful manner regardless of any developer's decisions, final or otherwise.

 

On that note, consumer discussion, feedback and expressions significantly help to guide product development and advancement in any given field over the medium/long or even short term. Did you know that the iFly 737 of today is leagues beyond the product that was initially released a few years ago? And it was impressive even then. At many points along the way they have added features previously determined as being unfeasible (and they're still going, even on their fs9 offering where possible!) All along the way it has been nothing but great camaraderie over there - we accept their decisions even while they allow us to freely (within reason) express our desires.

 

So again, it's not about pressuring anyone, it's about ...just talking - there's no harm in that is there? 

[dmbusmc 46]

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.

 

I liked the original response better...  :wink:

[calooom 48]

I fly on the A320/319 on a daily basis, and whilst there is flex, as others have said, there's such a small difference in change it's barely noticeable. I do love it when you hit turbulence and the wings just bounce up and down. It's similar to hitting a ruler at the end of a table and seeing it spring back and forth.

[cozzy21 0]

The wing flex is good. In the virtual simulation from the picture the aircraft is at constant altitude. But in the real aircraft picture the aircraft is landing, which means descending and the air comes into the wings sooooo:  "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - Isaac Newton. Get my picture?

[abasa12 38]

Alright - I know this sounds really crazy and counter-intuitive, but what if, instead of having a full flex simulation, there were only two "presets" - wings in flight and wings on ground? This would allow for a significantly more realistic wing position at different points in the flight, and really remove the performance hit. It could be an option, as well, as to avoid negative comments as a result. Just a suggestion, but I know that the issue is far more complex than that.