Wingflex Question

[Nighthwk 566]

1 hour ago, Ephedrin said:

but tbh, when I look at the 747 from the outside its wings just dont look right... The picture is not „going down“ that easily like when you are sitting in the observation lounge in FRA and watch Jumbos come and go. There is something about those wings, that feels not correct. I have no data, of course, where should I have it from.. but I have eyes.

Again, looks just won’t cut it and neither will eyes.

[Ephedrin 418]

6 hours ago, Milton Waddams said:

Again, looks just won’t cut it and neither will eyes.

Probably not and -as I said - I dont and wont care.. but there is a reason why people go on and on posting comparisons with photographs. And I don‘t think that it is PMDG‘s fault that it looks/feels wrong. As mentioned, there are many things influencing the view and people complain in other forums of other developers and products too. The whole wing flex topic isn‘t simulated very well in FSX and ESP. 

[vololiberista 205]

If I might make an observation on this discourse.

As Kyle has rightly said data must be provided to support the claim. Looking at the original photo a number of questions arise that would need to be answered therefore.

1. Exactly what model of 747 are we looking at?

2. What is its payload and fuel load?

3. What is its destination? Assuming it is taxiing TO the runway. If ATC have redirected it after landing then the whole topic is unanswerable and dead.

4. On the assumption that it is taxiing TO the runway the wingtips may very well have drooped significantly more whilst sitting at the gate seeing as a 747 will typically burn at least 4 metric tonnes of full just by taxiing for take-off even at a relatively small airport e.g. Luxembourg.

5. Having taking image captures of both the original and the sim supplied photos there appears to be a difference of no more than one foot of deflection at the tip once the images are scaled up.

6. Left to its own devices the sim will take fuel from the tanks in a specific order. Does PMDG follow that or do they override it with their own code. The sim defaults to "all" tanks when any aircraft is loaded and it is often neceessary to override that in order to have the correct fuel flow thereafter. Here's an example from DM's Super VC10

Quote

<Update>

<!-- IF ALL TANKS ARE SELECTED Resets default "All" tanks at startup-->

(A:FUEL TANK SELECTOR 1,ENUM) 1 == (A:FUEL TANK SELECTOR 2,ENUM) 1 == and
(A:FUEL TANK SELECTOR 3,ENUM) 1 == and (A:FUEL TANK SELECTOR 4,ENUM) 1 == and
if{ 1 (&gt;K:FUEL_SELECTOR_LEFT_AUX) 0 (&gt;K:FUEL_SELECTOR_2_LEFT_AUX)
0 (&gt;K:FUEL_SELECTOR_3_RIGHT_AUX) 1 (&gt;K:FUEL_SELECTOR_4_RIGHT_AUX) }

  </Update>

Just to show you guys that a lot of developer work goes into even the smallest detail which is PMDG's forte and for the OP to say this is a bug is both "word not allowed" and rude.

[Olympic260 415]

3 hours ago, vololiberista said:

Just to show you guys that a lot of developer work goes into even the smallest detail which is PMDG's forte and for the OP to say this is a bug is both "word not allowed" and rude.

It's neither rude nor a world that is not allowed. Nobody is perfect and mistakes do happen and we are more than keen to have our mistakes fixed BUT as we have said we need concrete data and not feelings.

 

Submit data that we are wrong and will do our best to fix the issue.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

15 hours ago, Ephedrin said:

But I see what those guys mean when they come and say „it is wrong“. I don‘t know if it‘s wrong, I don‘t know if it is due the perspective, the zoom, the real distance to the airplane of my POV and of the photographer..  But I see the point they (and they means more than one, no matter which language it‘s translated into :P ) found to complain/any-other-more-friendly-word :) 

Fair.

...and let it be clear that I have not once come in and told people that they cannot have this viewpoint, or share it. The manner in which you have shared it - "based on my viewpoint," and "I don't know if it's wrong but it doesn't look right" - is very different from "this is categorically wrong." The former is opinion-based, the latter must be backed by facts. The latter is what was asserted, without fact. That is what I object to.

If you wish to question something, bring the facts. If you wish to simply express your opinion, make it clear that it's your opinion.

So far, I haven't seen anything worth bringing to the team. I'm still at "hey, these random people say it's wrong based on wild guesses of fuel load from a picture or two" and even the pictures don't really show me much.

 

EDIT:

To tag along with what Chris said, if someone finds something that is not correct, then we're all ears. Again, though, be forward with the data behind your assertion that something is incorrect.

[Jovabra 18]

Wingflex minimum fuel at St Maarten TNCM

[Jovabra 18]

Wingflex on arrival

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Gqhl

[scandinavian13 5,192]

10 minutes ago, Jovabra said:

Wingflex minimum fuel at St Maarten TNCM

Again...data.

1 minute ago, Jovabra said:

Wingflex on arrival

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/Gqhl

Same picture as the earlier post, and - yet again - contains ZERO data.

 

 

Gents, this is really not that hard. It really, truly, is not.

What happens if that one flight happened to be tankering fuel, or wind was much better than anticipated and they have thousands extra (and this is entirely ignoring the fact that none of you know how much remaining was planned, on top of whatever alternates and CONT fuel)? If any of you knew those numbers, you'd provide them because that would be the data I'm requesting.

Bring.

Specific.

Data.

For those of you who do not understand this request, please ask for clarification, or, perhaps research what data is. The initial pushback came from some random photo being posted with some random WAG about how much fuel is in the tanks. Posting more random photos with WAGs really isn't going to help.

[Ephedrin 418]

30 minutes ago, Jovabra said:

Wingflex minimum fuel at St Maarten TNCM

As far as I know KL785 came into SXM with enough fuel to take off again and fly to Curacao without refueling. My information might be wrong but I think this was far from „minimum fuel“... 

[cyyzrwy24 127]

19 hours ago, soerennielsen said:

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

Hmmm, that is totally wrong statement.....

[Chris733 13]

 

 

 

 

 

 

best regards

[Olympic260 415]

Gents,

We have requested multiple times both Kyle and me to provide data, instead of that we are keep getting pictures and video without any data at all. If you have data that can indicate that there is an issue please do submit a ticket via the official way.