OK DISREGARD...

A few points:

1) Perspective is everything. You're comparing two photos of aircraft in different configurations at different angles from different distances to a static sim image (which looks like you're taking the screen cap from too low angle compared with the photos).

2) How do you know what fuel loads the aircraft in the photos are carrying? You don't unless you were flying them.

3) PMDG have the raw data for modelling the wings, you are basing your points off a few photos you found on google. Who is going to be right?

This topic was argued to death when the 744 came out, it doesn't need to be started again. PMDG have responded to this previously, use the search function.

I have to admit that some of the very first topics were brought up by me myself.

PMDG do have raw data that build a real 747 but not a 3D 747, the problem is not the data, is how a 3D model behaves according to the data.

Photos are for reference only.

Just now, bjapp677 said:

I have to admit that some of the very first topics were brought up by me myself.

PMDG do have raw data that build a real 747 but not a 3D 747, the problem is not the data, is how a 3D model behaves according to the data.

Photos are for reference only.

Then why resurrect old topics with the same lacklustre evidence that has already been rejected by PMDG? Wasn't there an update issued that adjusted the wing flex already? 

Unless you have solid evidence to suggest how it's modelled is incorrect, you're flogging a dead horse.

No I do not have any evidence on this. 

The update was about the wrong data input that causes the wing to droop too much even at zero fuel, it has nothing to do with this topic.

35 minutes ago, bjapp677 said:

No I do not have any evidence on this. 

The update was about the wrong data input that causes the wing to droop too much even at zero fuel, it has nothing to do with this topic.

I don't understand, your initial post indicates wing droop with different fuel loads, but you're saying an update which fixed wing droop with no fuel isn't relevant?

I'm confused... 

Just now, Anders Bermann said:

I'm confused... 

As am I...

1 hour ago, bjapp677 said:

Sorry in advance, I'm not recurrent a dead topic.

If you have a problem that you claim is an actual bug, bring it to support. This topic has been beaten to death. Moreover, I see no recent ideas. I see you nitpicking the wings to death - yet again - with no actual data (yet again). We've been over this. I know this because I was the one who said it the first time: show up with actual, hard data. Someone's casual observations of random angles drawn in MS Paint isn't enough to really prove something is wrong. This is particularly the case when zero data is provided other than "this portion bends way too much." Based on what? Actual data, or your gut feeling from looking at entirely unscientific data.

In my opinion, the weather should be cooler and nicer outside.
In actual fact, it is 86 degrees and humid. Facts trump opinions. Sorry.

OK I GIVE UP...

20 minutes ago, bjapp677 said:

OK I GIVE UP...

That's not what I asked, but absent any actual data, fine.

Seriously: if you have evidence to back up your claim, we'd love to see it. If there's no data, though, you're essentially trying to prove to me that the sky is chartreuse, simply because you say so. That's not how the world works.

9 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

That's not what I asked, but absent any actual data, fine.

Seriously: if you have evidence to back up your claim, we'd love to see it. If there's no data, though, you're essentially trying to prove to me that the sky is chartreuse, simply because you say so. That's not how the world works.

Well, sorry I really have no solid data.

However, as a 12 year experienced air traffic controller and 15 year experienced aviation photographer it just not feel right somewhere.

I can provide as many photos as you want but...sorry, no data evidence.

LOVE the aircraft you built anyway.

You guys rock.

Cheers.