Damage Modeling

[Comanche 417]

One thing thats always bugged me about FS9/FSX and previous versions, is the lack of damage modeling. I dont want to hear people screaming, wings fall off or dead bodies around the runway, I just want to see a blown tire from a bad landing or bent landing gear etc.. Something that shows that my landing was too hard or I over stressed the airplane or caused some damage. Tiped the wing during takoff or landing causing some damage. This is currently done very nicley on Rise of Flight and DCA A10. I would love to see it in the new "Flight" when it comes out. I hate just seeing the word crash appear and the flight re-sets. Id be happy if the damage modeling was just limited to the landing gear. Rob

[V1-Rotate 15]

Agreed. An overstressed surface, will not always mean an instant or inevitable crash. Deploying flaps at the wrong speed, won't crash the plane but will ruin your day .Things like that. Oh also seeing your right engine on fire because you forgot to check the oil pressure would be nice :(.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Agreed. An overstressed surface, will not always mean an instant or inevitable crash. Deploying flaps at the wrong speed, won't crash the plane but will ruin your day .Things like that. Oh also seeing your right engine on fire because you forgot to check the oil pressure would be nice :(.

Not seeing your right and your engine on fire because I did check my oil pressure is even nicer. I already have that in FSX! :( Kind regards,

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

I too would like to see the features mentioned. We know you are watching us Microsoft...listen! :(

[dmaher 0]

Yeah I agree damage modeling would be a great addition...even if it’s subtle.IMO this isn’t actually a technical issue.FS9 and FSX do have damage modeling features in the SDK.I haven’t explored them - so maybe someone else can comment on that...One problem is procedurally deforming a mesh to look damaged doesn’t really work well. In practice most low-poly models will look terrible if they are distorted (by software) to simulate damage...and animations may become off axis.So simulating damage is done in art not code.The conventionally solution is to hand build duplicate damage models…in components that can be swapped in combination.Like left wing, right wing, cowling, right gear… Ad Infin Item.This takes a lot of planning and time to do well…and it needs to be done meticulously to actually look good.Some people call this a state model and they get extremely complicated as states are added and used in combination.The other downside is these damage models take up memory and performance that could go to other systems.So generally damage needs to be a big priority in the game-play to justify the cost and performance impact. – something like car racing.As a wish list item Flight might further develop damage to make it easier and more practical.Additional texture swapping, texture animation, and vertex animation might tip the scale enough to make damage in FS models a common feature.

[LAdamson 240]

I've flown real planes for many years, and no damage, except for a compressed strut on a Piper low wing. Because of that, I'm not really concerned about model damage with a desktop simulator. If we have it, I think it's just a reason for simmers to start doing the "what ifs"............just to see how far the programmer has gone with damage animation. It boils down to this.........I think it would be a waste of time, unless it is an aircraft versus aircraft scenario, such as Rise of Flight, or other combat simulations.L.Adamson

[turner112 52]

I'm with Larry.Personally I don't care about damage modeling. I'd rather see focus on features that occur more than .001% of the time in my real-world flying... like ATC, weather, flight modeling, more appropriately positioned and scaled autogen, etc.

[spen2 1]

I agree with the OP, the only damage that i think would need simulating is that to the landing gear and possibly the flaps from improper use. I'm no pilot, but I would have thought that if you applied continuous manual braking on a 747 during landing, your going to lose a tyre or two? This is a simulation after all.

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, I agree, I'd prefer to see resources spent on more relevant stuff. I've only ever damaged a real aircraft on landing once, back when I was training and made a heavy landing, and that was only a cracked access cover for the wheel spat fairing. I flew that aircraft again an hour later, so there was more damage to my pride than anything else.Al

[mgh 89]

FS9 and FSX do have damage modeling features in the SDK.

FS9 and FSX both merely have a flag which if set to "1" enables visual damage (e.g. parts breaking off) to be seen when crashing the aircraft into the scenery. Note: visual damage will only work if it is built into the aircraft’s .mdl file.I imagine that a could deal of work would be needed to create realistic damage effects in the mode which could be unattractive commercially - would the increased cost be covered by increased sales?

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

As long as you don't just see the word crash and your plane stops because your wing hit a tree I'll be happy. I just hope we will see a little damage to our aircraft for making a little error/stupid move.

[Guest Dog_Is_My_Copilot]

Not only are there technological challenges to doing this well, as dmaher points out, but there are undoubtedly business and licensing challenges to doing visual damage modelling.It is highly unlikely that Aces or the Flight team can just do whatever they want with the aircraft. You have to keep in mind that Microsoft has a different set of rules than most (not all) of the smaller companies that make add-ons. I doubt Boeing or Airbus would let them show visual damage due to a hard landing or crash, for example. They probably would have to negotiate even engine fires/smoke.Most smaller developers doing add-ons likely don't bother to license aircraft or scenery buildings, etc. (you can't just put Starbucks or McDonalds all over the place like they are in real life in North America!) and most of the big companies like Boeing or Airbus likely aren't aware or don't bother chasing down something that sells a few hundred or a few thousand copies. But they look at Microsoft as a big bank that they can sue or at least extract royalty payments from. You see the same thing happen in racing games, like Forza, Gran Turismo, Need for Speed, etc.--for many years they weren't allowed to show damage to the cars, even if you rolled it over a dozen times at 150 mph! I know it is popular in some circles here to think that Microsoft is to blame for all things we don't like about Flight Sim but as lot of times as a game developer you don't have a choice on things so you come out with a compromise--in the case of FS9 and FSX the damage is simulated, at least, even if it doesn't look like the beach around Oceanic Flight 815.

[bandman 12]

A2A Simulation models prop strikes, tire wear, blowouts, and cumulative engine damage. I find that these are very much additive to the immersion of the simulator and wish that all the planes had these features.Just as when A2A introduced cumulative engine wear many people learned that things they were doing in the sim was not correct and would result in damage to the engine, having some damage modelling, I think, would help people get a better feel for landing a plane that is one step closer to the real world.

[Chock 17,769]

You have to bear in mind that things such as the A2A B-17G are military aircraft. Unlike the sadly rather fragile B-24, the B-17 was quite famous for being able to return to base with quite considerable damage, which it was unfortunately quite likely to receive when flying in a straight line for three minutes on a bomb run at 180mph whilst half the population of Berlin were lobbing flak shells up at the things.In some sense, portraying aircraft such as the B-17's ability to pull off a wheels-up landing and things of that nature is a tribute to the men and women who built, serviced and flew the things, so the Flying Fortress' robustness in that regard is probably something Boeing, Douglas and Vega were proud of, which means it's difficult to imagine Boeing objecting to that being modeled in a simulation, but one can hardly imagine them being thrilled at seeing what's left of an NG after it's cartwheeled down a runway in a huge fireball being modeled in what a developer then hopes to market as an officially licensed product.Al

[bandman 12]

It's not an all or nothing proposition. Having minor things modeled like damage from a poor landing does not mean you also have to model total annihilation.