I'm curious to know about the so called "performance hit". What can be shown as evidence that a "skinned animation" (aka wing flex) drops frame rate?

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.

 

I think the problem with this would then be that people would complain about some kind of jerky animation, or that the wings don't "flex" during turbulence / high loads / etc.

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.

 

Andrew -

 

in the "A320 Compact Information" topic at the fslabs forums it says, you're going to model "accurate wing bouncing". Is this correct?

 

And are we able to see the wing from the captain's and F/O's view?

Hello René,

 

Yes - wing bounce is included, as this is something that is quite prominent on the A320 series.

 

And are we able to see the wing from the captain's and F/O's view?

 

Not on our model. They're not a feature of the many FFS's we've visited and you're hard pushed to see them on the real thing, without pressing your face right up against the cockpit side windows.

 

 

Yes, there is a wing "shape change"  or wing flex on an an Airbus. But here's the thing, it is very, very small. So small that lead devs don't even bother in modeling it. That's it!.

Can someone tell me what the difference between "wing flex" and "wing bounce" is?

 

James

It might be a small difference, but it's noticeable and stiff wings on the AXE look.. strange

James:

 

 

Wing Flex is when about 9o% of the wing on large a/c  will bend up once the airplane is off the ground. This flex bend  is design so the wing can maintain it's strength without breaking.

 

A wing  bounce is generally small jerky  one- after-the- other up and down  movements, which will  be more noticeable at the far end of the wing, during  taxing  and/ or during  turbulence. 

 

On both actions the effect will be more noticeable on larger a/c which have large wings, thus the effect is more pronounced. Weight will also increase the "bending" or  "flexing" of the wing; thus the term wing flex...meaning it has the ability to bend up or down, without breaking.

Sure looks like a fair amount of flex exhibited here..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-hawkes/13830540855

 

And here..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25558228@N07/13800277904

Sure looks like a fair amount of flex exhibited here..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew-hawkes/13830540855

 

And here..

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25558228@N07/13800277904

Couldn't agree more - take a look at the first picture I posted, it shows the same thing as well. I don't know where this "no noticeable wingflex" is coming from. The video shows it as well.

There is no question the wings flex, they do, and they must. Not even the developers question that. It seems the sharklet equipped wings arc even more than those with winglets. The real question is implementation in the sim. I do fully understand any devs choices. FSL clearly feels the resources required to smoothly arc the wings slightly are better spent elsewhere. So they have opted for just 'bounce' - I get that. I assume Aerosoft has made a similar tradeoff choice for the AXE, albeit they don't animate the wings at all.

 

Devil's advocate hypothetical question for an FSL or Aerosoft:

Given the (understandable) design tradeoff above for the smaller A320, wonder if they'd have to do the same for an A330/40/80? Despite the family commonality, I assume the big birds, along with their sheer poly eating size, have even more inward complexity to reproduce in the sim? Would we see straight winged A330s too?   

Given the (understandable) design tradeoff above for the smaller A320, wonder if they'd have to do the same for an A330/40/80? Despite the family commonality, I assume the big birds, along with their sheer poly eating size, have even more inward complexity to reproduce in the sim? Would we see straight winged A330s too?

I gave my answer to your question in my first reply. The issue is with the A320, and that the wings don't flex enough to warrant the performance penalties of implementing this inside FSX... not with the mechanics of implementing such functionality within FSX.

 

I monitored the amount of wing flex on a flight yesterday and stand by our decision.

IMO, this discussion about flexing or non-flexing wings is pretty useless, because

1) the developers make their decisions, and then it's ours to decide whether to buy an "incomplete" product or not (I myself for example have no idea how much FPS flexing wings take, but if developers say it's not worth the effort, I accept that - not only because I have to, but also beause I think it's not that important),

2) it is IMO very complicated to support any position in this debate with pictures, unless two pictures of the same plane and the exact same position relative to it (this is actually important, because different positions can create different perceptions of an angle) can be provided, which show how the wings look in both static and moving conditions and

3) Shouldn't we actually spend the time looking out of the cockpit window, particularly those who are so concerned about realism in any detail B)?

 

 

 

Given the (understandable) design tradeoff above for the smaller A320, wonder if they'd have to do the same for an A330/40/80? Despite the family commonality, I assume the big birds, along with their sheer poly eating size, have even more inward complexity to reproduce in the sim? Would we see straight winged A330s too?

I think I recall an Aerosoft statement regarding this matter on the planned A330: IIRC, they said they will include this animation in the A330, as the flexing is by far more noticable there, and I guess that FSL have a similar policy there.

I gave my answer to your question in my first reply. The issue is with the A320, and that the wings don't flex enough to warrant the performance penalties of implementing this inside FSX... not with the mechanics of implementing such functionality within FSX.

 

I monitored the amount of wing flex on a flight yesterday and stand by our decision.

 

 

My post neither questioned FSL's decision, nor implied anything about FSL having a challenge with the mechanics of flex implementation within FSX. In fact, what I said was the opposite - I acknowledged your deliberate tradeoff decision. I then posed a hypothetical about the same deliberate decision on a larger aircraft - that's all. If you've said the performance hit would be worth it in that case I apologize if I missed it - getting on in years.

 

With that I'm out as well. This is indeed a sensitive topic for some strange reason, might as well be a Boeing vs Airbus debate. And I'm a little weary of having to explain what I'm NOT saying despite having been very clear imho.

 

Peace out and good flights to all!

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.

 

 

Here's one to add, stop developing for outdated FSX and put this energy into options like X-Plane and P3D then maybe this resource concern would be less of an issue...  :Cuppa:

 

I look at what QW did with the 146 in FS9 as a marker of what can be done if the base platform was optimized correctly.

I gave my answer to your question in my first reply. The issue is with the A320, and that the wings don't flex enough to warrant the performance penalties of implementing this inside FSX... not with the mechanics of implementing such functionality within FSX.

 

I monitored the amount of wing flex on a flight yesterday and stand by our decision.

 

 

Simple answer: Developer this product for X-Plane and/or P3D.  FSX's limitations would no longer be a problem...