We do not control turbulence from the aircraft side of things. The turbulence model in x-plane is a bit crazy and I myself simply turn down x-plane settings along with the thermal climb rate, which introduces ridiculous turbulence. We also do not put in wing flex and engine shake as of now. We have a philosophy of operational accuracy first and secondary physical responses later. Such effects go into the "eye candy" category, which is not bad at all...we like eye candy ourselves, it simply falls at the end of our priority chain, so given the option of spending our time developing low priority eye candy effects now vs. real aircraft operational accuracy, we choose the latter as priority. In addition, wing flex is not easy to get right. Most folks use simple relationships and this results in excessive flex in hard landings, which looks bad. We would like to implement proper beam flexure and stiffness models from mechanics and possibly forcing functions to get small wing vibrations while taxiing. All that being said, the classic has relatively stubby wings and do not flex as much as longer wingspan aircraft so nobody on our team misses it, we're having too much fun just sitting in the cockpit. In summary, yes we like wing flex but we will not put it in to simply make a longer bullet list for marketing. Once we get everything else done right, we may turn to the wing flex for this model, we may not...the short wings may not be worth the effort involved for this aircraft, at least not for the initial release. We are 3+ yrs into this and need to wrap up asap. Once we have a product on the market, some revenue and more time to invest in this kind of thing, then you will probably see more eye candy features applied. Right now the cockpit and sounds are just fantastic to experience IMO. We are working towards another video as soon as possible. TomK IXEG