Chris733

Wingflex Question

Recommended Posts

832305.jpg

 

This must be  fuel  around 120000 kg 

 

 

2017-12-17_17-30-14-195

This now 120000Kg Looks realy ugly ! 

2017-12-17_17-27-22-144

this shows 10000Kg fuel Looks like be full ! I think there is a Bug ! On the PMDG 747V2 Looks all ok to me 

 

 

Complete Empty

 

K-55114.jpg

 

 

best regards

Share this post


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

PMDG build aircraft based on data and input from real world pilots and people who interact with the aircraft on a daily basis, they don’t build them based off of the opinion of one person. Give them concrete data, backed up by statements of someone from Boeing or a maintenance technician, then they’ll look into it. I’m sure they’ll look into it but I doubt they’ll find anything wrong. Those photos do nothing to help your case, I’m afraid, you are estimating the amount of fuel in the Lufthansa’s tanks and a rollout 747 that most likely wasn’t the final revision of the -400 isn’t comparable to a production aircraft in service. Also, to be honest, I can’t really see a difference between the IRL picture and the sim’s wingflex, they look pretty similar.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chris733 said:

This must be  fuel  around 120000 kg 

Please provide the fuel slip and loadsheet.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between a bug and a design choice and/or limitation. What you have to be aware of is that there absolutely are limitations on what can be done with simulators designed to run on a PC; especially ones which are stuck with underlying old software architecture, as all ESP-based sims still are to a large degree.

PMDG and other developers could go absolutely obsessively nuts on creating perfect animations of every wing condition, with every possible fuel tank weight combination being related to every possible amount of bend of the wing structure which might occur at every different speed with every flap and gear combination in all meteorological conditions, but all of that stuff has an overhead on how the simulation operates, plus any such animation has to look acceptable on the ground as well as in the air, thus developers have to make choices; going with what looks pretty good on the whole in order to have some realism, but within the constraints of the simulation platform in order to have it run okay without requiring some kind of supercomputer.

PMDG know that their add-on aeroplanes are almost certainly not going to be flown around in FSX or P3D with the default scenery; the kind of people who buy PMDG aeroplanes are the kind of people who also have add-on ATC programs, fancy airport sceneries, souped-up terrain add-ons, add-on AI traffic, add on weather programs, add-on cloud textures, EFB add-ons, co-pilot add-ons etc, etc, so they have to leave some room available for that stuff to work in the simulation too, or their add-on aeroplane will be a slideshow, and if it is a slideshow, it won't sell, and if it doesn't sell, then there ain't no PMDG.

Generally speaking, PMDG are one of the better developers when it comes to the delicate balancing act between pushing what it is possible to do, and being aware of where they should reign in the temptation to throw everything including the kitchen sink at their add-on aeroplanes. The PMDG B747-400 is a case in point with this, being a complex and pleasing simulation of the real aeroplane, yet with a remarkably economical VAS footprint in FSX; an achievement which deserves a good deal of credit. Now of course VAS is less of an issue with P3D V4, but even in its 64 bit incarnation, the simulation still has to calculate what is going on and load and play animations smoothly, and that's nothing to do with the bit depth of the simulation, but everything to do with how capable the platform is when it comes to smoothly playing animations which have to be based upon data such as how much fuel is on board and which tanks it is in etc, etc, so it is still something developers have to be mindful of.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, YukonPete said:

So when are you releasing your 747??????

Do you want a dumb or a real answer?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe this is a bug and you can back it up with actual data, and not just pictures from the net, then please submit a ticket with all relevant data.

We have a large team of real 744 crews, both flight and ground, and access to actual Boeing data. So again if you have data that proves that we are wrong please do submit a ticket.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris733: 

1. How do you know that the realworld LH B747 picture the aircraft is loaded with 120000kg fuel
2. It is a flightsim so the cockpit is your "office" and not looking outside to compare every bolt/not or rivet.

Regards and enjoy the flightsim in the cockpit.
Jo va Bra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget, that when the Queen II (V3) was first released for P3D this issue about fuel and wing flex was raised by the many observant folks back then. In fact it was an issue about not having enough flex when the tanks were full to having little to no flex when the tanks were close to empty. There were many photos being shown for comparison and PMDG admitted to missing some important data input just prior to release.

However an update fixed this little problem and those observant folks are now happy. I too think everything looks good but then again I was piloting from the front seat and not looking back at the wing flex that often. 

 

IM

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Iceman2 said:

Don't forget, that when the Queen II (V3) was first released for P3D this issue about fuel and wing flex was raised by the many observant folks back then. In fact it was an issue about not having enough flex when the tanks were full to having little to no flex when the tanks were close to empty. There were many photos being shown for comparison and PMDG admitted to missing some important data input just prior to release.

However an update fixed this little problem and those observant folks are now happy. I too think everything looks good but then again I was piloting from the front seat and not looking back at the wing flex that often. 

 

IM

Glad you reminded us of this. Everyone seems so quick to grab their PMDG Pitchforks that they forget that everyone makes mistakes even the omniscient developers. 

A tip for the OP,  to avoid being flamed by certain people, try not to make your post seem so assertive especially if you don't have data to back up your claim. Write it more like a "maybe take a look at this? What do you guys think?" kind of vibe 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said in the other threads, and as Chris has already mentioned, it is important to come with data. Assertions can only go so far. A guess as to how much fuel is in the wings is entirely useless.

Bring data, or be incredibly clear that your point is to raise a question. Starting with "wrong" in a thread title without bringing hard data is misleading, and irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is a difference in "as long as you don´t know Mr. Boeing, your observations are completely useless" and "we are aware of this, and this had to be done like that because of limit of animations, or we have to take care of the VAS...", etc. I do quite a bit of plane spotting as well, and a 747-400 with almost empty wing tanks looks different! That wing drop is not "correct". I absolutely love the QOTS III, it's a masterpiece, no doubt. But these kind of answers from the dev team are absolutely unnecessary. But that's just my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mik75 said:

But these kind of answers from the dev team are absolutely unnecessary. But that's just my opinion...

No, they are not unnecessary.

If there is something off, bring data. It's really, incredibly simple. The pushback I've seen in the forum where people are getting upset because we're asking for hard data is ridiculous. If anything is unnecessary, that's it. "This is wrong because it feels wrong."

Sorry. No. This is not how the world works.

"Here is a picture of a plane sitting at Gate A32. The dispatch paperwork (which I have submitted via a ticket) shows [exactly X] fuel. This is a picture of the plane in the sim for comparison with the same amount of fuel."

Planes are built on data. We didn't pencil whip the performance numbers. We didn't pencil whip the model, either. There are numbers behind all of it. If you wish to challenge the numbers, provide some sort of hard evidence to go off of. It's an entire waste of dev time to go back to the team and say "hey, some random person of random credential posted a picture that calls this into question, based on a gut feeling and a wild guess on the data - please stop everything you're doing to look at this."

8 minutes ago, Mik75 said:

QOTS III

This doesn't exist.

Interesting, given the assertion of "I can eyeball something and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm right, and you're wrong."

(And post flight, the wing tanks are not "almost empty.")

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.