Wingflex - Time for a review?

[aceridgey 330]

Dear PMDG,

 

Are you going to modify the wingflex on the 747? I know it gets talked a lot in the simming community but is it to be addressed?

 

Alternatively, can anyone find any footage of the wing behaving like this in the real world?

 

 

[Captain Kevin 586]

For one, they're going to want data if you're going to ask about wingflex. My next question is, what are your turbulence settings set at in ActiveSky. I can't say I've seen the wings flex anywhere near close to what you're seeing. Different view, but nonetheless, doesn't look nearly as drastic.

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

55 minutes ago, aceridgey said:

Alternatively, can anyone find any footage of the wing behaving like this in the real world?

Alternatively, can anyone find any footage of literally anything being subjected to the same garbage g forces that something is subjected to in the sim, in the real world?

Dial down your turbulence slider. Bring data for review and discussion. Until then, I don't see any issues to discuss.

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, aceridgey said:

Are you going to modify the wingflex on the 747? I know it gets talked a lot in the simming community but is it to be addressed?

Alternatively, can anyone find any footage of the wing behaving like this in the real world?

Modify it to do what? It's not the real aeroplane, it's a simulation (and a broad one at that since it simulates numerous different variants of the 747-400), so it's never going to be exactly like the real thing, it's a good approximation of the real thing, because that's what it has to be. That is unless a developer literally models every single panel in the wing with its exact real-world counterpart's thickness, material type, tensile strength under various loads, speeds and temperatures, then also models all the fasteners, spars etc to a similarly accurate physical level, then also models the dynamics of every possible fuel level at every possible temperature and then creates a custom animation routine which can process all that in real time. I'm sure that as a task that would not be impossible to do, providing buyers of the resulting aeroplane simulation are prepared to accept either the one frame per hour refresh rate the simulator would then be displaying, or the new 'wing view simulator' product it would have to be, with no other things simulated other than that wing flex in order to perform at an acceptable frame rate because of the millions of calculations it would have to be making at least 25 times every second.

But even as is, I'm pretty sure given the exact same real world weather settings which were in your simulator at the time (which we might never find in the real world, and which also have to work in default, Active Sky, REX and other weather engines), i.e. the exact same airspeed, windspeed, temperature, dewpoint, with the same clouds, same precipitation, same turbulence and at the same altitude you were at (which we might also never find), with the exact same engine configuration at the exact same fan RPM with the exact same oil levels and the exact same fuel, cargo and passenger configuration (which again we might never come across), someone might possibly get the same wing flex on a video of the real thing, but the fact that you or I cannot find such footage does not mean that the wing of a 747 is never going to flex like that.

In the end you have to accept that it is not the real aeroplane. It's a very very good approximation of it in most respects which matter for a simulation, but it will have some limitations imposed upon it by virtue being in the host simulation it resides in and working in that host simulation to an acceptable level of performance.

In short, the only thing which needs a review is your expectation levels for a product which costs seventy quid and which works okay on a vast array of different computers.

 

[Victoroos 205]

why would you bring he spider down from the 100 realistic %

[hs118 707]

32 minutes ago, Victoroos said:

why would you bring he spider down from the 100 realistic %

100% turbulence in ActiveSky is not a "realism" setting. It is a measure of the total effect that the software can apply. In many cases, it is way too much, for example, the wake turbulence effect.

[Victoroos 205]

14 minutes ago, Henry Street said:

100% turbulence in ActiveSky is not a "realism" setting. It is a measure of the total effect that the software can apply. In many cases, it is way too much, for example, the wake turbulence effect.

what would be better?

[Iceman2 110]

FWIW IMHO, I have piloted the real 747-400 albeit a few years ago now and believe PMDG have done a remarkable job in simulating the wing flex on this product. My experience is with P3Dv4 and AS as the WX engine. Your mileage on different platforms or WX engines may vary.

The B747 is very unique in its wing flex especially after Boeing attached the winglets adding additional weight.

Viewed from the passenger seat the wing on a 74 appears to be alive and moves around all the time while taxiing or flying. 

In order to simulate this unique living wing and dealing with the many in sim limitations, PMDG have had to make the flex more sensitive to create this effect . (I’m no software engineer, just a happy customer) 

As PMDG have stated many times in their forums and probably in their manuals adjustment to settings within the WX engine (of choice) is necessary.

I think I have AS set just right for my personal taste, unfortunately I can’t remember the figures right this second, but if anyone wants to ask for them I’m happy to look them up when next on the sim computer.

 From memory the turbulence & WS rates have been adjusted and the extra thunderstorm turbulence effect disabled.  

I know this post will frustrate those who don’t know how or what to adjust in their weather engine of choice but at least try and experiment and have fun.

IM

 

[aceridgey 330]

A little heavy here gents,

 

But I feel the real wing flexes towards the 25% mostly but the pmdg looks like that 50% of the wingsection is one single piece. If that makes sense,

 

This video demonstrates it

 

 

[Chock 17,769]

Without knowing all the possible parameters involved, any video footage someone shows to demonstrate 'realistic wing flex' can only be relevant to that specific instance, i.e. in that clip: LE slats extended, and presumably flaps, climbing with a high angle of attack, fuel on board sufficient for the trip, but not necessarily only for that trip since fuel is sometimes 'tinkered' to save money, going through clouds and rain, so presumably a fair bit of turbulence sloshing the fuel around and bouncing the aeroplane up and down too, unknown passenger and cargo load and so on, with winglets, so with the tips reinforced to take the weight of them, which also differs between those which are factory fitted from new and those added at a later date, etc, etc.

[hs118 707]

Difficult for me to ask without sounding snarky...but why are you looking out the passenger window? Do you have a partner flying the plane? Are these planes so automated and the flights so boring, that this item becomes so significant?

 

[DavidP 1,408]

24 minutes ago, Henry Street said:

Difficult for me to ask without sounding snarky...but why are you looking out the passenger window? Do you have a partner flying the plane? Are these planes so automated and the flights so boring, that this item becomes so significant?

 

Have you ever considered that the OP may also be watching a replay of the approach and landing, which is something I do after each landing and continue to observe what appears to be excessive wing droop with landing fuel on board.

[hs118 707]

2 hours ago, DavidP said:

Have you ever considered that the OP may also be watching a replay of the approach and landing, which is something I do after each landing and continue to observe what appears to be excessive wing droop with landing fuel on board.

I truly wasn't trying to be snarky. In the little niche of the community to which I identify, most flights are 1-2 hours and filled to the brim with pilotage/maneuvers. Things are so busy, to get screenshots, I mapped the screen cap to a joystick button.

Your observation is a different perspective for me.

Another example, most landings (we call them recoveries) happen at 500-800 fpm descent with no flare. All the talk of 150 fpm landings is new to me.

Do the folks who like to fly the large jets ever fly patterns or practice failures? How about dirty runway landings with snow, ice or water?

.

[MattS 45]

7 hours ago, aceridgey said:

A little heavy here gents,

 

But I feel the real wing flexes towards the 25% mostly but the pmdg looks like that 50% of the wingsection is one single piece. If that makes sense,

 

This video demonstrates it

I see what you are saying. More of the wing flexes in real life, not just the outer 25% or so. The video also shows some twisting of the wing which is cool.

Personally, I have no issue with the wing flex, If PMDG wants to fine tune it, great. If not, no big deal. If anything, I'd like to see more wing animation.

 

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

I'm still waiting to see the engines shake like pmdg advertised. I can't seem to find enough turbulence. Hell, the cockpit doesn't even shake.