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

I remember the old wing flex topic vividly. There were many pictures in that thread, some of the guys put quite a lot of effort into showing what they´ve meant. And very often, it´s not about WHAT is said, but HOW it is said. And you know, this "QOTS III doesn´t exist" thing shows exactly what I mean! I´m a loyal PMDG customer, for years. I own pretty much every product you´ve ever released! And in the world of trade and economics, repsect for each other is quite important, that´s how the world works! Some of your customers in this forum, and some of the staff act quite arrogant, that´s something I personally don´t like at all! Especially, because there´s no need for that! And there is no need to become personal, as well! Your QOTS II (!!!!) is a work of art, and it wouldn´t take anything away from it, if you would admit, that the wing drop is caused by a design limit, or a trade off for saving VAS, or whatever. Planes are inspected VISUALLY, every day, before every flight! And if the wing of a 747 would hang down like this with almost empty tanks, I´m pretty sure there would be some further investigation! ;-)

However, there is a reason why I usually don´t post in this forum, so I´m over and out!

Share this post


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

And you know, this "QOTS III doesn´t exist" thing shows exactly what I mean!

I don't think you understand what I was getting at, though.

Your earlier assertion was "trust me, my powers of observation are really good," yet the recollection of the aircraft name shows the opposite. It's minor, but an illustration of the discrepancy between actuality and the recollection of 'reality' in the mind.

8 minutes ago, Mik75 said:

Some of your customers in this forum, and some of the staff act quite arrogant, that´s something I personally don´t like at all!

This has nothing to do with arrogance. Actuality exists. Numbers and data define and reflect that actuality. If you wish to assert that the actuality of the sim differs from the actuality of the real world, bring data. There is ZERO room for feelings - arrogance, pride, whatever - with data. Assertions that I'm hiding behind arrogance when requesting data is an argument to emotion. Emotions are necessary in this discussion...just data.

Data has no emotions.

11 minutes ago, Mik75 said:

Planes are inspected VISUALLY, every day, before every flight!

You're correct, but your example is not sound. I inspect the aircraft I fly visually, but the visual inspection is an inspection of things that can be represented by data: in place true/false, item in range x/y. Wing flex between x/y by eyeballing the thing isn't one of them, nor is fuel between x/y by eyeballing it. Sure, you can verify that you see fuel by pulling the caps, but you will want to have the data behind it by looking at the gauges.

14 minutes ago, Mik75 said:

And if the wing of a 747 would hang down like this with almost empty tanks, I´m pretty sure there would be some further investigation! ;-)

...based on...?

Data. Where's yours? :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

However, there is a reason why I usually don´t post in this forum, so I´m over and out!

Neither do I, for the very same reasons.

Some of the staff is terribly thin skinned and take everything personally, specially lacking to understand the differences of the different part of the world

the forum members is coming from, IE different language and the way to say things. We already try to express ourself the best we can, but our mother language

is not English and even less American.

Do the staff here speak German, French or Danish, No. But they still sell their software all over the world. and expect everybody to act, behave and express

themself as they do. Open your eyes to the rest of the world.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but regarding the in-sim pictures the OP posted: Where is the shadow which the 747 should be casting? The nosewheel doesn't look as if it is in contact with the ground - nothing to reference it by. Has the OP used slew mode and dropped the sim 747? The pic could be showing the wing flexing due to the excessive bounce! Taken at just the right time to not show extended oleos....

:uwe_merm: just playing devil's advocate.

 

EDIT - Sometimes the sim can display and outside view which looks like a fish-eye lens has been used. Is the level of zoom used in those pics completely free from that fish-eye effect? If not then excessive curvature would be present.

Edited by HighBypass
additional question.

Share this post


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

Neither do I, for the very same reasons.

Some of the staff is terribly thin skinned and take everything personally, specially lacking to understand the differences of the different part of the world

the forum members is coming from, IE different language and the way to say things. We already try to express ourself the best we can, but our mother language

is not English and even less American.

Do the staff here speak German, French or Danish, No. But they still sell their software all over the world. and expect everybody to act, behave and express

themself as they do. Open your eyes to the rest of the world.

I’m missing the point of your post here. There should be no reason for you to not want to post here due to the staff, they are VERY helpful and pleasant when people don’t go into their forums saying how their stuff is wrong with no data to back it up. Kyle, Chris, and RSR aren’t thin-skinned, have you seen some of the stuff they have had to deal with? It just bugs them when people openly say they’re wrong and their simulations are flawed based on pictures, estimates, and feelings on how things SHOULD look. Aircraft are built on data, not on observation, and I think they just get annoyed when people don’t see this and time and time again, come here posting about how things are wrong. It happens a lot more than it should, and I think they just get tired of going around in a circle and saying the same thing over and over again. How do they lack understanding of different parts of the world? Their dev team, testing team, and beta team are incredibly diverse people from places around the globe. And this is the part I really don’t get, yes they sell their product around the world as all devs do, and yes they do expect people to express themselves in the way that they do and that is calm, collected, professional, and humble. 

Share this post


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

Data. Where's yours? :)

Reminds me of the phrase “Got Milk?”. Should be changed to “Got Data?”:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mik75 said:

However, there is a reason why I usually don´t post in this forum, so I´m over and out!

Care to elaborate on that reason? I’m genuinely curious as I see no reason for you to not want to post in the forum. Play by their rules, the few that they have, and you have no reason to be upset or discouraged. Picking a fight with Kyle certainly doesn’t do you any good. Relax and enjoy yourself, we’re all friends here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Milton Waddams said:

I’m missing the point of your post here. There should be no reason for you to not want to post here due to the staff, they are VERY helpful and pleasant when people don’t go into their forums saying how their stuff is wrong with no data to back it up. Kyle, Chris, and RSR aren’t thin-skinned, have you seen some of the stuff they have had to deal with? It just bugs them when people openly say they’re wrong and their simulations are flawed based on pictures, estimates, and feelings on how things SHOULD look. Aircraft are built on data, not on observation, and I think they just get annoyed when people don’t see this and time and time again, come here posting about how things are wrong. It happens a lot more than it should, and I think they just get tired of going around in a circle and saying the same thing over and over again. How do they lack understanding of different parts of the world? Their dev team, testing team, and beta team are incredibly diverse people from places around the globe. And this is the part I really don’t get, yes they sell their product around the world as all devs do, and yes they do expect people to express themselves in the way that they do and that is calm, collected, professional, and humble. 

It is quite obvious. Open your eyes to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soerennielsen said:

It is quite obvious. Open your eyes to the world.

I don’t know what you mean by “open your eyes to the world”. Could you explain it a bit more?

Share this post


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

I don’t know what you mean by “open your eyes to the world”. Could you explain it a bit more?

If you do not understand it, it is just my point. English is not my mother language. To me it is quite obvious. There is a world outside of the USA.

Is that so hart to understand. 

Share this post


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