I enjoy having random failures set during my flight so I always know something may fail and don't get lazy.but.. PMDG's random failure system while being thorough is just too frequent. 1 in 10 hours avg usually means half or more of my flights will recieve atleast one failure. In the future would it be possible to have more choice on the chance of failure?Maybe allow a options for events upto a 100hour time frame (or even more), this way I could set the failure rate and leave it, while still aware I could have possible failure at anytime. I think many more people would experiement with the deep failure system you have provided, and train themselves on failure procedures.Just a thought (and hope)Jay V.

This topic gets kicked around occasionally.If realism is the goal, then the failure rate should be one per 100,000-10,000,00 hour rate. No one would like that if you want failures.If allowing a failure to occure once in every 10 flights then there would be lots of complaints for failures from folks that forgot they set it up that way, and many more from people that don't understand failure rates and expect one per 20 hours if that is the setting (there is only a probability of an error in 20 hours if the rate is one per 20 hours, there is also a probability that you could go 60 hours without failure at the same failure rate).Thence the logic for the failure rate range provided in the sim.

I've got to disagree with you there Dan. I've always wished PMDG would do a failure engine that is similar to the one found on the 767."If allowing a failure to occur once in every 10 flights then there would be lots of complaints for failures from folks that forgot they set it up that way"In the years that "the other" product has been released, I can't recall anybody having a problem because they forgot that failures were enabled. If it has happened in the past, I doubt anybody on the support team even remembers it.I like that PMDG has beefed up the failure engine from the 747 release. That was a real pain, because I'd invariably end up diverting or doing an engine-out approach. The MD11 has more subtle failures.The 767 failure system sets the number of failures on a monthly basis, so you'll have mostly good flights, with a smattering of bad flights. I like to use failures as a learning tool so I can learn more about the aircraft systems, so I'm forced to set failures each flight. It would be really nice if failures could be loaded automatically.Paul

Ya I fully agree on this one. Most of my flights are 8-12 hours and I dont want to have failures on every flight. So unfortunately I always leave failures turned off which is too bad because I really do love what PMDG has done with the failures on this bird. I used the 767 many many times and thought that set up was perfect.Noah B.

been asking for this for ages, the 767 failure system is perfect. Rob

I've got to disagree with you there Dan. I've always wished PMDG would do a failure engine that is similar to the one found on the 767."If allowing a failure to occur once in every 10 flights then there would be lots of complaints for failures from folks that forgot they set it up that way"In the years that "the other" product has been released, I can't recall anybody having a problem because they forgot that failures were enabled. If it has happened in the past, I doubt anybody on the support team even remembers it.I like that PMDG has beefed up the failure engine from the 747 release. That was a real pain, because I'd invariably end up diverting or doing an engine-out approach. The MD11 has more subtle failures.The 767 failure system sets the number of failures on a monthly basis, so you'll have mostly good flights, with a smattering of bad flights. I like to use failures as a learning tool so I can learn more about the aircraft systems, so I'm forced to set failures each flight. It would be really nice if failures could be loaded automatically.Paul

Agree.

If allowing a failure to occure once in every 10 flights then there would be lots of complaints for failures from folks that forgot they set it up that way,

They can always "pause" go into the failure menu (where they set the failure in the first place) and clear active failure they forgot they set. I don't think because a few users got confused from a failure they forgot about setting (their own fault) that the rest of us shouldn't have any option for a lower failure rate settings. Sure 1 in 100hr's is no where near the realistic fugure but neither is 1 in 10 hours.Like I said I like the chance of a failure but don't want to get them two out of three flights.Jay V.

I don't like to 'bump' threads but I am just hoping for a official word or semi-official. I would love to play around with random failures more but they come just too frequent for me and it seems others too.Is it a future possibility (in a patch or new products) or is there some sort of limitations that make it harder then it seems or impossible?Thanks for everyones replies by the way.

The failure engine from A2A 377 accu-sim is very goodAnd there is also the future Airsimmer A320 wear, tear and abuse simulation. This one is very promising.Benjamin