Greater Wing flex

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Just wanted to post this issue I noticed some time ago about the wing flexion in the Hornet (although it is present in all planes with this feature for some reason).

 

The problem is that the point at which the flexion starts seems to be in an incorrect place along the wing..., Im talking about the cantilever embedment which seems to be placed near the wing tips instead of where the wings connect with the plane's body.

 

How it seems to work in DCS (below is the displacement diagram):

 

 

How it should be:

 

 

Notice how only the wing tip is being displaced:

 

 

watching videos it is clearly visible with the naked eye that the flexion in DCS is lacking that flex at the start of the embedment and thus, the displacement at the wing tips is too low. For some reason, as I said, other planes seem to suffer the same issue but the hornet is particulary easy to notice.

 

For comparsion I took few pictures of videos and tried to take the same picture in DCS (note that I leave the status bar in the DCS images so you can see the flight paramenters (all pictures were took with 5+ g's, amount that should be more than enough to produce high wing flex and surely higher than the g's/speed the plane was producing at the real life ones:

 

 

 

 

 

Another issue with the wing flex is (probably related to the previous one) that there has to be a really huge amount of g's to see any noticeable flex which doesn't seem to be the case in real life...watching videos you can see how at very low speeds (thus low g's) very noticeable wing flex is evident.

 

Im not sure why this is happening but I guess something is wrong in the animation in 3ds or the link to it with the parameter/s controlling the amoung of displacement according to the amount of g's but definitely something is wrong. Not a game breaker, I know, but is one of these things that once you see it you cant stop noticing it.

 

Hope this can be improved/fixed asap.

 

thanks!

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Why has this been moved to the wish list¿?, this is not a wish, this is a BUG as it is a feature that isn't working as it should...you even edited the title of the post, wow!!

 

always the same, I really don't know why I even bother.

Edited July 25, 2019 by watermanpc

[Ala12Rv-Muscat]

i totally agree.....

[Strikeeagle345]

wish list? really? Dude has a point here.

[GGTharos]

While this may not work quite as 'in reality', it may be working exactly as the devs intended, which would make it not a bug.

[Harker]

While this may not work quite as 'in reality', it may be working exactly as the devs intended, which would make it not a bug.

While this may be true, it would be nice if ED gave the reason it was transfered to the wish list.

[Nooch]

Stop ranting lmao. This is not even a bug. Plus your comparison pictures between the sim and reality look incredibly close... I don't really see how they modelled it wrong really. Maybe the flex point has to be shifted 2 centimeters or whatever, it's hard to tell, pics are so close. But just chill...

[sobek]

While this may be true, it would be nice if ED gave the reason it was transfered to the wish list.

 

 

Because it is a change request and not a bug.

[bbrz]

Stop ranting lmao. This is not even a bug. Plus your comparison pictures between the sim and reality look incredibly close... I don't really see how they modelled it wrong really. Maybe the flex point has to be shifted 2 centimeters or whatever, it's hard to tell, pics are so close. But just chill...

 

+1 Furthermore the first 'diagram' looks incorrect to me. Not only does wingflex start further inboard, due to the exaggerated bending it looks even worse than it is.

The wing should definitely not bend that much directly at the root as in the second 'diagram'.

 

As Nooch wrote: It's amazing how close to RL the DCS F/A-18 looks, thanks to the comparison pics.

Edited July 25, 2019 by bbrz

[Harker]

Because it is a change request and not a bug.

Be that as it may, the OP submitted it as a bug. Taking 20 seconds to write "the dev team considers it working as intended, but thanks for the input", would be better, even if nothing came of it at the end.

[FSKRipper]

Be that as it may, the OP submitted it as a bug. Taking 20 seconds to write "the dev team considers it working as intended, but thanks for the input", would be better, even if nothing came of it at the end.

 

Yeah but this isn't happening. Why? No idea, Maybe the number of bugs? I think the OP could be happy to make it into the wishlist. Could have been also tagged as "No Bug" and closed. I would also agree that the pictures are close to each other and the diagramm is way over RL. Never seen a wing which was bend from the root like this.

[Tailhook]

It could maybe use about 2-5% more flex, but regardless, please stop making new threads for MOAR FLEX. I don't want to see anyone's Hornet with flappy wings over multiplayer.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

+1 Furthermore the first 'diagram' looks incorrect to me. Not only does wingflex start further inboard, due to the exaggerated bending it looks even worse than it is.

The wing should definitely not bend that much directly at the root as in the second 'diagram'.

 

As Nooch wrote: It's amazing how close to RL the DCS F/A-18 looks, thanks to the comparison pics.

 

I have no idea what you meant with your image but do you realice that the wings have their own shape right??:huh: so what the hell does that red line means? are you meassuring the flex with it? because if so it look like you have no idea what you are talking about, sorry. This line you draw means nothing as the wing is bended in all planes and have a very complex shape.

 

The images I posted are just simple representations of what I meant, they are not based on any scale nor something like that, however they are perfectly correct from a structural theory perspective except for the linear type of displacement representation I used in the displacement diagrams (just didnt had the time to make it curve).

 

The wings in a plane basically beahaves as a cantilever beams so it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE that they have ZERO flex moment along them (or part of them) except for the embedment (otherwise that would mean the wing is broken in its connection with the body)...the displacement due to the flex momentum would be infinitesimal but should be progresively increasing along the whole wing (the whole beam) as far as there is some load on it.

 

I have been testing this behaviour in DCS and I can ASURE that the structural representation I posted in the first post (the wrong one) is the actual experience Im having in game of this feature so I stand correct, this is not workin correctly!...the inner half of the wing has literally ZERO displacement, so this means it has infinite rigidity (which is impossible) and would explain the OBVIOUS lack of full flexion we are experiencing (this is my educated guess just to try to put it easier to devs to identificate the problem).

 

This is not a matter of "how much flex" (or that I "want" more flex :doh: ) but that the way this is modelled is WRONG! and it is easily noticeable when comparing it with the real thing. If the explanation is not enough, all images I posted corroborate what Im saying and it is even clearer when you see this in movement:

 

 

Some of you might find it "close enough" or might not care about this, good for you!!, I DO care about these things and even more when is an actual working FEATURE of this plane so if I think it is NOT working correctly and spend MY TIME to explain why in a detailed way I should obtain a reason why I might be wrong, otherwise consider it as a BUG (something that isn't working as it should is a bug in my book, not a "request" to make it work fine)...so If the HARM is working "close enough" then it is ok? or would it be considered a BUG???, why is this different? :huh:

 

I know (and thus I posted it in the first post) that this is not a "game breaker" thing but it doesn't mean it is not a bug, as far as the problem is not Im asking for half an inch of "more flex" but that the whole behaviour of the feature is odd and not based on how it would behave in real life, at least form a basic structural perspective.

 

I think that if you do something you must do it WELL!! and if this feature exist is because someone took the time to add it and maybe something went wrong and can be fixed, Im just trying to help with that...thing is I want it to work as it should, which doesnt mean I expect perfection, I know nothing will ever be perfect, but at least the basic concept of the things should be correctly modelled which doesnt seem to be the case with the wings flexion for the reasons explained and the images supporting these explanations. I dont think doing this correctly makes much difference from doing it "close enough" or wrong so I have hope someone understand this and fix it.

Edited July 25, 2019 by watermanpc

[bbrz]

I have no idea what you meant with your image but do you realice that the wings have their own shape right??:huh: so what the hell does that red line means? are you meassuring the flex with it? because if so it look like you have no idea what you are talking about, sorry. This line you draw means nothing as the wing is bended in all planes and have a very complex shape.

I guess that when you are writing, 'the wing is bended' you mean the geometrical twist or washout. Nevertheless, without load, the leading and trailing edges are simple straight lines.

The shape of the F/A-18 wing isn't complex at all. The Concorde has a complex wing shape.

That said, looking at various cockpit videos (easier to judge wingflex IMO) the wing does seem to bend in a slightly non-uniform way with a sharper bend at he folding joint.

Again, I'm surprised how nice and realistic the DCS version is.

Edited July 26, 2019 by bbrz

[probad]

i have more confidence in ed's understanding of the physics and engineering of the hornet's wing than senor eyeballphysics

[KTFBGB]

Just like with the post about wanting to see 3 degrees more aileron travel during a flaps down wipeout, I fail to see how this affects the playability of the aircraft. The pictures look exactly the same as real life. I just can’t understand how this ruins the flyability for you. Do you fly around in the F2 view most of the time or something for it to hurt your feelings this bad? Now I’m not an aircraft engineer, but I build buildings for a living. Anytime you have a cantilever the design is engineered to be ridged past the point of embedment usually with a safety factor of at least double the engineered load that is expected. Past whatever point the engineer deems appropriate, then flex is allowed. This is to insure a rigid connection past the point of embedment so that you don’t develop stress fracturing at the point of embedment. I would assume this would be the same for aircraft. No the aircraft wing embedment point would not be infinitely rigid, but it would have a safety factor above and beyond the allowed G forces placed on the wing. If this was not the case, you would probably stress fracture the embedment point the first flight. There is a point at which it would flex however with the engineered safety factor and allowable engineered flex, the wing tips would probably bust off before you saw this happen.

[26-J39]

something that isn't working as it should is a bug in my book

 

 

While i agree the wing flex could use a little tweaking you are wrong about your understanding of what is defined as a bug. A bug is an error in code or logic where a feature ceases to function as intended. If a feature doesn't match real life 100% doesn't mean it's a bug, refining the code to mimic real life is incredibly difficult so there is always going to be an acceptable margin of error.

[bbrz]

Just like with the post about wanting to see 3 degrees more aileron travel during a flaps down wipeout, I fail to see how this affects the playability of the aircraft

That's an entirely different issue and it might actually affect the FM.

Airplane/wing structure design doesn't have much (if anything) in common with wing design since they are designed to flex.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-can-an-airplanes-wing-flex-before-they-break

[KTFBGB]

Those sketches show exactly what I was talking about. Wing stays ridged well past the point of embedment.

[bbrz]

I see. In this case it was a classic language problem, sorry. At least in the translation 'embedment' doesn't fit to an airplane structure.

Edited July 26, 2019 by bbrz

[bbrz]

...watching cockpit videos isn't a good idea to judge the issue Im talking about because you can't see the joint of the wing with the body, which is the part affected by the "no flex issue", but in many cockpit videos I noticed that flexion is still lacking in DCS because even though joints are not visible, the sumatory amount of flex produced closer to these joints is there making the wing tips to look more flexed.

 

...you only came here to make your usual smartass comment.

 

...Im a civil engineer so I think I know what Im talking about

 

Being a civil engineer doesn't imply that you know anything about airplane structures and design.

Your assumptions about 'embedment' and the associated bending are simply wrong.

And I have zero idea why you are starting a personal attack.

 

Nevertheless, here's a nice video about wing bending moments. Suggest to compare how much the wing flexes at the root and at the tip.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by bbrz

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Being a civil engineer doesn't imply that you know anything about airplane structures and design.

Your assumptions about 'embedment' and the associated bending are simply wrong.

And I have zero idea why you are starting a personal attack.

 

Nevertheless, here's a nice video about wing bending moments. Suggest to compare how much the wing flexes at the root and at the tip.

 

 

 

the video actually corroborates what Im talking about, thanks!:)

[bbrz]

Well, if you are blind, or if you are deliberately drawing the wrong conclusion, I can't do anything. Hope ED doesn't change the 'basics' concerning wing flex. Over & out.

Edited July 26, 2019 by bbrz

[KTFBGB]

Being a civil engineer doesn't imply that you know anything about airplane structures and design.

Your assumptions about 'embedment' and the associated bending are simply wrong.

And I have zero idea why you are starting a personal attack.

 

Nevertheless, here's a nice video about wing bending moments. Suggest to compare how much the wing flexes at the root and at the tip.

 

 

Well actually it does. I don’t really agree with him on this problem. But, civil or aerospace engineer, the basic fundamentals are the same, the math is the same. Allowable tolerances and specific properties of different materials and desired performance is different.

[SirJ]

you guys made my day :D :D

 

 

calm down and enjoy the game...

 

 

btw: I am an aerospace engineer ... and as said before DCS is very plausible in terms of wing design and stiffness structres in different parts of the wing...in terms of weapon stations, wing root momentum etc...

 

 

as said before...just enjoy the game...