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

[MachTwo 386]

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!

No problem Mark - easy to get our wires crossed, especially over forums. I've no idea why wing flex is such a hot topic, but its been enjoyable reading everyone's different points of view. It would probably be much easier to discuss all this over a few beers :smile:

[John_Tavendale 453]

Its disappointing to hear there won't be wing flex. Seems a waste to model an accurate version of an A320 external model and leave it out.....

 

Why not give punters the choice? stiff wings for a frame or 2 more, or flexing wings for a frame or two less..

[snowingairlines 20]

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

To find pictures with wing flex on an a320 series plane, one much selectively search through a large number of pictures. This low number of pictures that demonstrate wing flex, shows how little flex that there is. Google almost any picture of a 737 and wing flex is visible.

[MrSpeaker 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

Well I like to look out the window with trackir, on the AXE they did'nt even model wings to look at lol, now thats lazy, i hope i can see the wings from the cockpit on fsl or I will just stick with Boeing and fly PMDG.

[adi518 73]

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

 

Hmm, PMDG 777 is just as complex and it has wing-flex. The animation isn't heavy on fps. What takes a huge toll on fps are those big cockpit screens. Unfortunately FSX wasn't built with these in-mind, so P3D 2 is the only possible hope that the rendering mechanism of glass cockpits will ever be revamped to work properly and smoothly on modern gpus.

[JoshuaC 61]

AXE they did'nt even model wings to look at lol, now thats lazy

Its a design choice. This have been discussed at the aerosoft forums before. Reason being is that you cant see much of the wing from the pilots chair position unless you plaster your face to the glass.

[GHarrall 494]

Hmm, PMDG 777 is just as complex and it has wing-flex. The animation isn't heavy on fps. What takes a huge toll on fps are those big cockpit screens. Unfortunately FSX wasn't built with these in-mind, so P3D 2 is the only possible hope that the rendering mechanism of glass cockpits will ever be revamped to work properly and smoothly on modern gpus.

I was talking about project airbus.

[guy 24]

For their A320 Project Airbus had done two models

the old one WITHOUT wingflex and the new one WITH WINGFLEX.

Imho they modelled wingflex quite well.

 

I had compared the two.

In WiNGVIEW the difference is almost NOT visible.

But in OUTSIDE view  Wingflex is MORE visible.

 

Some shots to compare:

 

Wingview WITHOUT wingflex:

 

Wingview WITH wingflex:

 

 

Outside WITHOUT wingflex:

 

Outside WITH wingflex:

 

 

In direct comparison the non-wingflex model seems a little odd at first in outside view, that's true. But once you are used to the non-flexing wings, you don't see it any more.

At least that is my case .  :smile:

 

Btw, I have seen NO noticable difference in frame-rates between the two.

 

Guy

[Dillon 2,197]

Moral of the story is quite making A320's with no wingflex because the real bird has it.  Also if the excuse is resources dump FSX as their are other platforms to develop for.  Make it right or don't make it at all...   :ph34r:

[abasa12 38]

It's too bad we're not going to get wingflex on the otherwise really awesome-looking CRJ either.

[MachTwo 386]

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

 

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

 

So, right after I posted this - the rest of the team at FSL thought they could prove me wrong (and they have).

 

Therefore, I'll have to retract my previous statement here - sorry :smile:

[Paul Golding 92]

So, right after I posted this - the rest of the team at FSL thought they could prove me wrong (and they have).

 

Therefore, I'll have to retract my previous statement here - sorry :smile:

I wonder which part is being retracted........they don't really flex at all, or they do and the performance penalty is so small that FSL will be implementing the feature?

 

Personally, I can't see the point of visible flexing as this is most noticeable on take-off and landing whilst you're supposed to be, erm, like flying the thing.  However, I do accept that in flight there is a slightly higher wingtip than when on the ground.  So why not forget flexing (resources) and have a simple 2 position wing shape with the touch-down/lift-off triggering the difference?  That way, those that want to get out of the cockpit and watch in spot view during cruise can see their ever so slightly different wing shape.

[MachTwo 386]

Sorry for being a little vague there Paul - 

 

We found a way to add wing flex/bounce with minimal impact on performance. 

[UAE77W 16]

Hi Andrew -

 

it's nice to hear the FSL A320 finally got the wingflex. I just dealt with your reason not to implent it and I accepted it because we're sitting in the Flight Deck and barely looking at the wings.

But great, another feature a lot of customers will enjoy.  B)

[elche 5]

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.