About CL650 wingflex

[XP227]

This is a very good aircraft. The experience of both avionics system and aerodynamics is very good, but I found that this aircraft does not seem to have the bending effect of wings. Will this effect be updated in the later update? Now the wings look hard, and the air is sagging.

[Cameron]

Hi there,

I believe your mind is playing tricks with you here. The angle and reflections of the pictures are similar, but different. The CL 650 is a very small wing, with almost no wing flex. Even jostling the wing by hand in a hangar produces no flex (we tried this).

We may look into flex from a physics point of view, but even if we eventually do, you may still be disappointed with how little flex there is.

[XP227]

9 hours ago, Cameron said:

Hi there,

I believe your mind is playing tricks with you here. The angle and reflections of the pictures are similar, but different. The CL 650 is a very small wing, with almost no wing flex. Even jostling the wing by hand in a hangar produces no flex (we tried this).

We may look into flex from a physics point of view, but even if we eventually do, you may still be disappointed with how little flex there is.

For the two cl650, I traced the position of the winglet during taxiing, and then stacked a landing cl650 with exactly the same angle. The different winglet positions indicate that the wing position has changed

[TheHorsley]

Is this much analysis into wing flex really necessary?  they're a small wing, they wont bend that much anyway.

 

i offer in exchange - actual wing flex

 

 

[ois650]

Hello,

The angles of the screenshots and photos are definitely playing tricks on you.

The "flex" you are seeing in the first screenshot is heavily aided by the change of angle in the wing's leading edge as well as the low angle of the photo.

You cannot directly compare the winglet position from the ground photos taken at around 0° camera angle vs 30-40° camera angle in the airborne photo.

Lastly, as Cameron stated, a test was done on a real Challenger 650 which provided no flex. It's a stiff wing!

Simmers love their wing flex for some reason but it's just not realistic in this case.

Brgds 

[lordauriel]

I hope you realize that there IS wingflex, no matter how much you deny it. it is unfair to compare trying to move the wing by hand, to what the wing does when the airplane is airbore with high wing loading, in a scenario where the pilot pulls up (rotation, upset recovery etc) or turbulence. 

Implementing wingflex in PlaneMaker is simple and takes mere minutes. A small value that makes the wingtips flex a bit in moderate turbulence or high positive G is enough, and would add a lot. 

Here a CL650 video showing some wingflex during normal approach in light chop. It's not much, but clearly visible. Yes it's a stiff wing. BUt it does flex. 
 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by lordauriel

[Ben Russell]

Ticking the box in plane maker won't do anything automatic to the visual model. 

 

[CaptCrash]

Thank you for the report, we have pretty good details of the amount of "wingflex" the CL650 has. The wing does technically bend but the bending moment is large and is very similar to the stiffness of an airbus wing. The wingflex implementation was not a priority for release and is planned for a future update.

[Captain_Crow]

Hi,

I am  always wondering what criteria user lays on a simulated arcraft in Flightsimulations.

For me I am sitting in the cockpit and try to study all the technical stuff what Hotstart provided in a very impressing way. There is a lot to learn about. Until now I had not one look to the wings, to see if or how much they move..

Imaging real pilots are practicing in a real simulator, and complain about no wingflex. Funny..

Sorry this is my humble opinion, take it as a joke...

Best

Steff

[severniae]

I always wonder about these tiny little details that have nothing to do with flying the aircraft... are people flying around looking at the wing view!?

[Goran_M]

We really don't mind.  If it isn't too much of a big deal to add a bit of eye candy, we're more than happy to accomodate those who want it.  I'm a big believer of the little things that make people go "Wow!"

In saying that, I will be adding wingflex, however, it will be very subtle.  I think it flexes by about 10 inches up and down (20 inches in total), but I will confirm.  We have quite a few things on our plate at the moment, and my top priorities right now are the ADG and some external decals.  If I can fit wingflex in before the next update, I will.  

[severniae]

11 hours ago, Goran_M said:

We really don't mind.  If it isn't too much of a big deal to add a bit of eye candy, we're more than happy to accomodate those who want it.  I'm a big believer of the little things that make people go "Wow!"

In saying that, I will be adding wingflex, however, it will be very subtle.  I think it flexes by about 10 inches up and down (20 inches in total), but I will confirm.  We have quite a few things on our plate at the moment, and my top priorities right now are the ADG and some external decals.  If I can fit wingflex in before the next update, I will.  

The only thing I would say - please only put it in as it is in real life! Too many people are used to 'sim-isms' (just take a look at the debate on visibility at altitude..).

[Orlando Cuesta]

On 1/28/2022 at 6:14 AM, lordauriel said:

Espero que te des cuenta de que HAY wingflex, no importa cuánto lo niegues. es injusto comparar tratar de mover el ala a mano con lo que hace el ala cuando el avión está en el aire con una carga alar elevada, en un escenario en el que el piloto se detiene (rotación, recuperación trastornada, etc.) o turbulencia. 

La implementación de wingflex en PlaneMaker es simple y toma solo unos minutos. Un valor pequeño que haga que las puntas de las alas se flexionen un poco en turbulencias moderadas o G positiva alta es suficiente y agregaría mucho. 

Aquí un video CL650 que muestra algo de wingflex durante la aproximación normal en chopping ligero. No es mucho, pero claramente visible. Sí, es un ala rígida. PERO se flexiona. 
 

 

Es correcto. Mejor imposible darse cuenta de lo Obvio.

 

On 1/28/2022 at 11:04 AM, CaptCrash said:

Gracias por el reporte, tenemos bastante buenos detalles de la cantidad de "wingflex" que tiene el CL650. El ala técnicamente se dobla, pero el momento de flexión es grande y es muy similar a la rigidez de un ala de aerobús. La implementación de wingflex no era una prioridad para el lanzamiento y está planificada para una actualización futura.

Pues aun que sea un mínimo detalle o no sea de importancia para quienes lo diseñaron. Es HACERBIEN LAS COSAS DESDE UN PRINCIPIO. Y no estar negando lo OBVIO.

 

On 1/29/2022 at 11:33 AM, Captain_Crow said:

Hola,

Siempre me pregunto qué criterios establece el usuario en una aeronave simulada en Flightsimulations.

Para mí, estoy sentado en la cabina y trato de estudiar todas las cosas técnicas que Hotstart proporcionó de una manera muy impresionante. Hay mucho que aprender. Hasta ahora no le había echado ni un vistazo a las alas, para ver si se mueven o cuánto..

Los pilotos reales de imágenes están practicando en un simulador real y se quejan de que no hay flexión de las alas. Gracioso..

Lo siento, esta es mi humilde opinión, tómalo como una broma...

Mejor

Steff

Pues si. Pero por el valor del addon ese DETALLE de la Flexión de las Alas es algo a estas alturas del diseño de aviónes para simulador algo BASICO.

 

On 1/15/2022 at 2:07 AM, oisin650 said:

Hola,

Los ángulos de las capturas de pantalla y las fotos definitivamente te están jugando una mala pasada.

La "flexión" que está viendo en la primera captura de pantalla se ve muy favorecida por el cambio de ángulo en el borde de ataque del ala, así como por el ángulo bajo de la foto.

No puede comparar directamente la posición de las aletas de las fotos terrestres tomadas con un ángulo de cámara de alrededor de 0° frente a un ángulo de cámara de 30-40° en la foto aérea.

Por último, como dijo Cameron, se realizó una prueba en un Challenger 650 real que no proporcionó flexibilidad. ¡Es un ala rígida!

A los Simmers les encanta la flexión de sus alas por alguna razón, pero no es realista en este caso.

brgds 

Lo que no es Realista es MENOSPRECIAR lo OBVIO y negar las quejas de los clientes de HoTStart. No son divinidades y claro que tienen sus errores. Y por OBLIGACION les guste o NO lo deben de hacer. ASI DE SIMPLE.

 

On 1/14/2022 at 12:33 PM, Cameron said:

Hola,

Creo que tu mente te está jugando una mala pasada aquí. El ángulo y los reflejos de las imágenes son similares, pero diferentes. El CL 650 es un ala muy pequeña, casi sin flexión alar. Incluso empujar el ala a mano en un hangar no produce flexión (probamos esto).

Es posible que analicemos la flexibilidad desde el punto de vista de la física, pero incluso si finalmente lo hacemos, es posible que aún se sienta decepcionado con la poca flexibilidad que hay.

USTED NO SE PREOCUPE POR NUESTRA IMAGINACION. DEBE CORREGIR ESTE ERROR . ES SU OBLIGACION.

[Cameron]

@Orlando Cuesta

You have not purchased this product. Enough said.

[Goran_M]

I love Google translate.  

Let's just say there's a right way and a wrong way to ask for things and to get them done.  Orlando demonstrated the worst way.

[Graeme_77]

This is an adjusted crosspost from the Hot Start Discord, but I think it's relevant to this thread.

Every wing ever made will flex. A PA28 has wingflex. A Lockheed Starfighter has wingflex. The Challenger has a very stiff wing, and as such you won’t see significant movement in flight. There are no engines out there on the wing, so the bending loads at the root are minimal. Aircraft like the 737 and 747 carry the engines out on the wing, so on the ground the gear supports the engine and the wing will bend down with the engine and fuel weight. In flight, the wing carries the weight of the engine and fuel, and so will flex upwards. The Challenger only carries the fuel in the wing, and it's only just over 2000KG with full tanks, so the difference in flight and on the ground is minimal.  Without the engine out there as a mass damper the wing flex is also smaller in magnitude and potentially higher in frequency, essentially it will flex less and stop flexing sooner.

In X-Plane the turbulence simulation feels pretty poor IMHO. Low intensity chop, where the flight path doesn’t change and it feels more like driving slowly over a cobbled or washboard road is most likely to show the wing moving, but X-Plane does a pretty poor job at replicating that - XP11 lacks subtlety in most parts of the weather simulation.

There’s also the fact that real wings show smooth deformation / bending (one single continuous curve) but XP can’t do that sort of smooth body animation, so it’s necessary to chop the wing up into sections and have angles between them. This can then cause other issues with the wing like flap positioning etc. As such, wingflex in XP is a compromise - it will never look perfect.

Goran has been clear that Wingflex is coming to the Challenger, and the devs may have some magic up their sleeves to make the subtle movements happen.

However judging by other addons, large movements of the wing (like a 787 or 737NG) in XP turb are what some sim pilots want to see when they ask for “wingflex”. The Challenger will not have this, as the real thing does not.  I think it’s important to set expectations correctly for the community. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by Graeme_77