burkocatepe

wing flex

Recommended Posts

In my opinion , wing flex is not realistic on 747 and 777 planes. 737 is somewhat ok.But i believe you can make them better. Is it really hard to create a very realistic flex look?

 

thanks

 

burak

Share this post


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

15 minutes ago, burkocatepe said:

In my opinion , wing flex is not realistic on 747 and 777 planes. 737 is somewhat ok.But i believe you can make them better. Is it really hard to create a very realistic flex look?

 

thanks

 

burak

I cannot confirm how accurately PMDG have modelled wing flex on their current flagship jet aircraft. However, PMDG have built a reputation over the last twenty years for not leaving something half done, and I think it would be safe to assume that their modelling of wing flex is quite accurate. If you don’t mind me asking, what makes it look unrealistic to you? And what are you comparing it against? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen realistic wingflex in flight or on landing with any aircraft in P3D,   This doesn't seem to be a PMDG specific issue.   P3D/FSX doesn't seem to allow for fluid, realistic animation models.  It would be good if someone could explain why this is.  Gear compression is also quite unrealistic.  Xplane absolutely nails the animation physics.  I don't use xplane, but I like what they do with animations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, VHOEI said:

I cannot confirm how accurately PMDG have modelled wing flex on their current flagship jet aircraft. However, PMDG have built a reputation over the last twenty years for not leaving something half done, and I think it would be safe to assume that their modelling of wing flex is quite accurate. If you don’t mind me asking, what makes it look unrealistic to you? And what are you comparing it against? :)

I m comparing against real life :)  well, watch this video of xplane , you will understand the difference.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, burkocatepe said:

I m comparing against real life :)  well, watch this video of xplane , you will understand the difference.

 

I understand, I have been an XP native and have loved the way things look in the sim. (I guess I have gotten used to the PMDG animations that have a reduced frame rate to save us performance and some of the nuances of FSX/P3D.)

I presume that ErichB has answer though. 

9 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I have never seen realistic wingflex in flight or on landing with any aircraft in P3D,   This doesn't seem to be a PMDG specific issue.   P3D/FSX doesn't seem to allow for fluid, realistic animation models.  It would be good if someone could explain why this is.  Gear compression is also quite unrealistic.  Xplane absolutely nails the animation physics.  I don't use xplane, but I like what they do with animations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, burkocatepe said:

In my opinion

We don't build planes on opinions. We build them on data. Bring data. Until that point, it's just an opinion, and the world of physics and sims doesn't run on those.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scandinavian13 said:

We don't build planes on opinions. We build them on data. Bring data. Until that point, it's just an opinion, and the world of physics and sims doesn't run on those.

Kyle, you always bring sense and reason to these topics, but in this case, the OP has raised a valid question. 

I don't think this is a PMDG  issue, but it doesn't seem to me that fluid wing flex animation is possible in P3D. because no-one has managed to achieve it.  You will know better than I if that is true.  But if you look at the video posted above -  just looking at the wing alone will convince you that's a real wing.  The slight and persistent wing wobble is exceptionally convincing.  Why is that not possible in P3D?  A core sim physics issue?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scandinavian13 said:

We don't build planes on opinions. We build them on data. Bring data. Until that point, it's just an opinion, and the world of physics and sims doesn't run on those.

What data are you talking about? I know what physics is. There is always a way to make it better. It needs improvement. Its not my job to give the data. I just compare real world and sim. Look at x plane wing flex. Somebody out there can make it. So there is data . Just try to think wider.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ErichB said:

Kyle, you always bring sense and reason to these topics, but in this case, the OP has raised a valid question. 

I don't think this is a PMDG  issue, but it doesn't seem to me that fluid wing flex animation is possible in P3D. because no-one has managed to achieve it.  You will know better than I if that is true.  But if you look at the video posted above -  just looking at the wing alone will convince you that's a real wing.  The slight and persistent wing wobble is exceptionally convincing.  Why is that not possible in P3D?  A core sim physics issue?

I think this type of question should be more addressed towards P3D.. as its a P3D issue with the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, burkocatepe said:

What data are you talking about? I know what physics is. There is always a way to make it better. It needs improvement. Its not my job to give the data. I just compare real world and sim. Look at x plane wing flex. Somebody out there can make it. So there is data . Just try to think wider.

He's referring to your OPINION that the wingflex is unrealistic. Unless you have time in a 737, 777, or 747 (not as a passenger) or work on the aircraft, then they don't take suggestions like "this isn't realistic" seriously as you have no way of knowing if it's realistic or not. I'd assume it's a P3D issue, rather than a PMDG issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 7:07 PM, Milton Waddams said:

Unless you have time in a 737, 777, or 747 (not as a passenger) or work on the aircraft, then they don't take suggestions like "this isn't realistic" seriously as you have no way of knowing if it's realistic or not.

How would time as P1 or P2 be any use in knowing what the wingflex looks like from the passenger cabin?

You don't need any time at all as a pilot to know what the wings look like when you are on board an airliner, you just need to be on board the thing and have a pair of eyes, and to be honest, you'd be able to see the wing far better from row 8 in the cabin than you would from up in the cockpit, that is in fact why there is a little mark above the windows in the cabin of most airliners, it's to tell the crew which is the best window to look out of if they go back into the cabin to inspect the wing for ice etc, because you can't see it properly from the cockpit.

Here's an A320 shot on my phone from out the window of seat 6A last week coming back from France (and yeah, I know PMDG don't make an A320, but unfortunately that was the plane I was on), no need for me to be piloting the thing to observe whether the wing was bouncing up and down, which actually it doesn't appear to be doing that much, although if you watch the dark line along the top of the wing behind the slats, it does give an indication of how much the wing is bending (skim to about 7 mins in if you wanna see the take off with the wing taking on the load etc). And yes, I did want to slap that whiny little kid on the opposite side of the aisle, I was glad when they cranked up the rubber bands so I couldn't hear the little brat:

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which simulator and which weather are you using Burak? Add-on weather engines can be apocalyptic in nature...

 

I'll leave this here... 

and I found this over on an X-plane forum (not sure if I'm allowed a direct link, but I quote:

"

Terrible pity we can't have wing flex like PMDG's gorgeous 777. If only we could have it, it would be 10 steps closer to perfection. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Zeke*Earl"

 

Seems you can't please everyone :D 

Edited by HighBypass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Terrible pity we can't have wing flex like PMDG's gorgeous 777. If only we could have it, it would be 10 steps closer to perfection. 

Lol good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be completely honest - the wing flexing animations of bouncing in turblenece etc. of PMDG's planes in P3D is not realistic.  I don't use other planes in P3D apart from PMDG, so I am not sure if it is a PMDG or a P3D thing.

The wing flex animation in all of them look nothing like what you see in the real world looking out the window.  I am talking about the way the wings wobble and "flap around".  In P3D it always looks jerky and not good.  The X-Plane video above looks far more like what you see in the real world.  A more smooth animation.  I think PMDG have the shape and everything correct - just some limitation somewhere makes the animation jerky.

Also - don't bring this data and time as a professional on a 7x7 into it.  You don't need it to see with your eyes out the window and look at how something moves.  Wings don't move in jerks like in P3D.  That is a fact that can be backed up with endless evidence.  To argue against that is foolish.

Maybe PMDG are saying they've modeled it with real data, which I am sure they have.  But P3D is probably like a dodgy old VHS trying to play a bluray disc

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak to the accuracy of the wingflex found in PMDG models, but I will say that for whatever reason the FPS of these animations in P3D is quite low for some reason.  I think this plays a large role in how 'realistic' the wingflex animations look as well, as they do certainly look quite choppy.  This could certainly be a P3D issue though considering that it's still FSX base code

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:08 PM, scandinavian13 said:

We don't build planes on opinions. We build them on data. Bring data. Until that point, it's just an opinion, and the world of physics and sims doesn't run on those.

actually this isn't entirely true when it comes to a lot of animations and 3d modelling and textures, I happen to know this first hand that often its not possible to model everything from data, quite often in very complex projects many items will be done by eye and this always leaves room for error as it then will come down to one persons opinion or another. Its a bit of a myth that everything is modelled precisely from blueprints etc by even the top developers simply because this isn't always practical or possible even at the highest level when it comes to the graphics, modelling and texture side of development. A lot of the time there simply wont be data/ measurements available for some items and in those cases then other routes to find as realistic a solution as possible may be used such as personal experience, utube videos, photos  etc . I think the system/ coding side of development tend to lean more heavily on data than the graphics side which is where realism depends a lot more an the graphic artists ability to transfer what he sees in to his art work and there in lies the skill that makes them a good artist rather than just a mathematician. 

 

So actually the world of sims as far as the graphics and animations are concerned certainly can rely on opinions and any 3d modeller or graphic artist dev will be able to relate to that. I think a lot of simmers would be amazed to know how much modelling and animation is simply done by eye!

 

nick caldwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nickcaldwell4587 said:

actually this isn't entirely true when it comes to a lot of animations and 3d modelling and textures, I happen to know this first hand that often its not possible to model everything from data, quite often in very complex projects many items will be done by eye and this always leaves room for error as it then will come down to one persons opinion or another. Its a bit of a myth that everything is modelled precisely from blueprints etc by even the top developers simply because this isn't always practical or possible even at the highest level when it comes to the graphics, modelling and texture side of development. A lot of the time there simply wont be data/ measurements available for some items and in those cases then other routes to find as realistic a solution as possible may be used such as personal experience, utube videos, photos  etc . I think the system/ coding side of development tend to lean more heavily on data than the graphics side which is where realism depends a lot more an the graphic artists ability to transfer what he sees in to his art work and there in lies the skill that makes them a good artist rather than just a mathematician. 

 

So actually the world of sims as far as the graphics and animations are concerned certainly can rely on opinions and any 3d modeller or graphic artist dev will be able to relate to that. I think a lot of simmers would be amazed to know how much modelling and animation is simply done by eye!

 

nick caldwell

So you know what data we can and can't get? Interesting...

All the same, the point was to say that we don't model or change things simply because someone tosses an opinion out there. Opinions are great, but if no data is presented, even if you're only eyeballing it, then there isn't much to go on.

"In my opinion, you're wrong."
Okay. Great. Thanks for the feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

 

So you know what data we can and can't get? Interesting...

 

as far as graphics and modelling are concerned yep a pretty good idea.  No Matter how well connected one is there is a lot of stuff that simply doesn't have data to obtain even if you could access all there is. Even if you did have the Boeing blueprints much will still be modelled by eye simply if for no other reason that the sheer scale of the task of accurately measuring every part of your model wouldn't be feasible In terms of work load/time constraints etc ,   much simply has to be done by eye or photographs.

An example of this would be the exact dimensions of the exterior fuselage in many places very few will have precise measurements and the majority of the time alot will be modelled by eye and from photos blended in to 3dsmax. Its much easier to measure a flight deck internally obviously and even then some parts will still be done by eye despite this, hence the dimensional mistakes that can often be evident in many high end addons ive seen over the years.

nick caldwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nickcaldwell4587 said:

as far as graphics and modelling are concerned yep a pretty good idea.  No Matter how well connected one is there is a lot of stuff that simply doesn't have data to obtain even if you could access all there is. Much simply has to be done by eye or photographs.

An example of this would be the exact dimensions of the exterior fuselage in many places very few will have precise measurements and the majority of the time alot will be modelled by eye and from photos blended in to 3dsmax. Its much easier to measure a flight deck internally obviously and even then some parts will still be done by eye despite this, hence the dimensional mistakes that can often be evident in many high end addons ive seen over the years.

nick caldwell

Interesting. Glad we have our own processes and aren't bound by your assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 9:43 PM, HighBypass said:

Add-on weather engines can be apocalyptic in nature...

I agree.  Unfortunately, some weather engine addons are still fairly unrealistic and seem to greatly exaggerate the degree of turbulence and/or instantaneous gusts (perhaps by design?), so that the overall effect of flying in bad weather will look and feel more dramatic. The end result is that the aircraft’s wing will sometimes appear to do spectacular ‘gyrations’. Wing flex is based around two primary calculation factors: rigidity and displacement.  If the atmospherics engine behaved "as expected" (read: somewhere close to actual 'real-life' values) then the amount of displacement of the wing and the amount of time it takes to return to the undisturbed position is probably very very close to being accurate. 

I have found that the best way to check this out is to start by testing with a calm wind and CAVOK conditions and see if the wing flexing behaves ‘normally’. Next, try reducing the input settings of any addon WX effects you have until you are happy with the overall appearance of the wing flex in turbulence. This should then hopefully allow the mathematics controlling PMDG’s wing flex to respond "normally" once again. If this doesn’t work for you then all I can suggest the next time your PMDG wing ‘gyrates’ in turbulence is to grin and bear it and follow one airline captain’s advice when he encountered sudden severe turbulence. He was heard to apologise over the PA to his passengers for the "light turbulence" and recommended that they should keep their mouth firmly shut, because he had discovered many years ago that it stopped his own false teeth from rattling!

Bertie Goddard

  • Upvote 1

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