Failure & Realism ??

[LAdamson 240]

Without a full blown cockpit, realistic failures & reactions are NOT going to happen....After wading through the replies to the "What we would want to see fixed in FS2k6..." post; I read numerous requests & replies for more realistic aircraft/system failures.Okay............ say Microsoft programmers or the 3rd parties give us more realistic failures. Say your engine suddenly gives up the ghost for instance. Then what? Without a full blown cockpit including knobs, handles, and switches before our eyes; there is NO WAY we can realistically switch tanks, use the fuel pump, check for fuel flow, switch magneto's back & forth, etc............. in "real" time using the mouse, keyboard & a few switches on our joystick. Same problem will happen with engine failure in a twin. In addition to not "feeling" yaw, too many checklist items can't be accomplished in real time. Therefor, I see it being a bit pointless to get down on 3rd party aircraft vendors for not exactly replicating realistic failures. But from some of the postings, it seems that that's what some simmers are hoping for. IMO----- using a checklist & memorizing proceedures for different types of failures is a great idea & good practice. But it's a waste of time to program the airplane "falling apart"; when the majority of us, can't take corrective actions in real time, or without the "pause" button!Other than that; if you want more realism, for a realistic flight, then just follow the checklists to the tee.L.Adamson

[Guest SoarPics]

I beleive this "damage modeling" is in it's infancy, still needing better hardware and software to actually work realistically. I don't feel it offers any real measure of usefullness at this time, but perhaps in the future.Having said that, any payware developer that advertises such abilities should be held to making it work authentically.Greg

[KevinAu 441]

I disagree. Though you may not be actually craning around and physically reaching around for things, the most valuable thing that practicing emergency procedures on top of the desk with a realistic aircraft is to get the chance to run through the procedure and see what kind of mental mistakes you may be susceptible to. With bigger aircraft, flying is primarily by instrumentation anyways, and forcing that to be your only means of sensing what the aircraft is doing helps those of us who fly those bigger aircraft prepare for the kind of real life training events we are subject to.One key thing that helps is that you should take advantage of the control assignments menu of the game and make it more practical for your usage. Since you assign it yourself, there is usually no problem with remembering what keystroke to affect a function should be since it is a key that makes sense for you already. With a practical, personal control setup, commanding things becomes second nature and the focus can then be on procedure and flying.

[Guest SoarPics]

"the most valuable thing that practicing emergency procedures on top of the desk with a realistic aircraft "And therein lies the difference in our perceptions. The desktop experience, while somewhat realistic, doesn't stack up to the real thing. The realism simply isn't all there for me yet.Practicing emergency procedures on the desktop isn't a bad idea if one keeps in mind that it is not yet totally realistic.Cheers,Greg

[Guest cast1010]

With your concept we shouldn't even have Flight Simulator in the first place. What is more unrealistic to fly a 2 or 3 crew airliner during normal operations by only one person sitting using just a keyboard, mouse and joystick/yoke/pedals. Or flying a twin/single engine GA airplane, also during normal operations just looking at a monitor with no 3D images and so on. It's pointless to continue because that approach lacks of logic and foundation.I suggested the introduction of realistic failures (both to Microsoft and PMDG) not to simulate emergency procedures in real time (I share with you that there's no way to fully simulate emergency procedures in a personal computer) but to make us (the users) feel/simulate what a real pilot feels during normal operations. We (real pilots) spend a great amount of time during a flight monitoring several parameters that might lead to some sort of failure and hence compromise the safety of the flight, that produces a feeling that leads you to fly the airplane as instructed by the POH, manuals, etc, not only for economy savings and best performance, but also for safety. In the simulation world, this feeling can't be accomplished due to "perfect" airplanes that will never have not even a minor failure regardless of the way you fly it. Note, I'm not complaining with those great developers out there for not delivering this features, I'm just suggesting they introduce this idea to enhance the flight simulation experience.I'm one of the customers that bought the FSD Navajo mostly for its advertised damaging model, the reasons I'm now disappointed are posted in other threads, I think is also pointless to continue with that discussion here too but the main problem lays when you buy something for X reason and then you find out the X is not working as advertised. Please lets not continue talking about FSD here, there is another thread on that specific subject created recently by Barry.Back to the failures, I think you shouldn't worry too much LAdmason, I bet you will have the choice to turn OFF that feature if you don't like to use it.Regards,Carlos.

[KevinAu 441]

Nothing stacks up to the real thing, not even a Level D, whether it is worthwhile or not to do emergencies depends on one's attitude and expectations.

[Guest SoarPics]

"Nothing stacks up to the real thing, not even a Level D, whether it is worthwhile or not to do emergencies depends on one's attitude and expectations."Agreed. And I don't expect that much from a $55 desktop gaming sim. For the money it doesn't do too bad. But when I strap the real thing to my backside, I already have it in my head what I'll do and try should the brown stuff hit the fan. That comes more from preperation and RL practice than anything I could get from this sim in it's present, and in my opinion, near future state.Regards,Greg

[Johan_Dees 84]

Yeah, most engines for example are rated for a certain ammont of minuts maximum power.. nothing in FS will happen if you do it for hours.. even the props engines can go on and on.. whatever one does.Johan[A HREF=http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk]Phoenix Simulation Software[/A]-----http://www.people.zeelandnet.nl/johdUnofficial PSS Website

[LAdamson 240]

>Yeah, most engines for example are rated for a certain ammont>of minuts maximum power.. nothing in FS will happen if you do>it for hours.. even the props engines can go on and on..>whatever one does.>>My Lycoming 0360, 4 cylinder , 180 HP engine has NO restrictions for maximum power use. It just needs to be leaned as Lycoming's specs, and kept with-in redline RPM ---- 2700. I also have constant speed prop retrictions between 2000 & 2250 rpm. for vibration.These engine's may easily reach TBO of 2000 hours, having been run full out most of the time................. or maybe not. We're not talking of running "warbird" emergency power at redicously high manifold pressures.And BTW --- There is two schools of thought on this subject. Babying the engine versus high power settings. But then just about everything in aviation seems to have two seperate sides of the issue. Such as what causes lift, leaning past peak, throttle & pitch, etc. L.Adamson

[KevinAu 441]

>>And BTW --- There is two schools of thought on this subject.>Babying the engine versus high power settings. But then just>about everything in aviation seems to have two seperate sides>of the issue. Such as what causes lift, leaning past peak,>throttle & pitch, etc. >>L.Adamson>>Pitch for speed.:(

[Guest]

I don't understand all this talk of realism. It's like people are obsessed with useless things that force everybody else to study them just to play (pmdg for example and their genius idea not to include a GPS, ready for pushback 2 and their genius idea to force you to go through a 100 page checklist just to get the thing in the air...)People need to calm down and realize it's just a game. No it isn't real life, stop prentending it is

[michal 44]

Larry,I agree with you completely. I can't understand why someone wants 'failures' simulated even when the 'standard' operation is far from complete or realistic. Default airplanes in FSCOF are still so cartoonish in every respect that they beter fix that before they even attempt to include failures in their simulation world.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

LarryHi, I agree with what you are saying and your subject really points to the biggest hole in flightsimming and that is FEAR.The flight sim doesnt create the feeling you get in the pit of your stomach on a dark winters night, in awful icing when the cockpit fills with an electrical burning smell and smoke starts to waft around your eyes as happened to me a few months back.The sim doesnt recreate the feeling you get again on a dark night coming out of Dublin with half an inch of ice on the screen, the boots working full pelt as you search for a level which wont cause icing problems, watching the airspeed deteriorate as ice builds on the airframe reducing the cruise speed.Then all of a sudden the left engine starts cutting then surging back into life again.This happened to me again a few months ago and resulted in the whole fuel system being replaced under warranty in the aircraft in question.Again climbing in freezing conditions after going through very heavy rain after passing 12000 feet with the aircraft trimmed in the climb attitude the whole trim system FROZE meaning that i had to descend with terrific out of trim forces through CBS to warmer air to free it.These are just a taste of what happens real world. Its taxing an already heavy workload to the ultimate and with a big dose of fear!!!Think about this aspect when yopu consider the GAMEY failures that we have at present.Peter

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"Such as what causes lift, leaning past peak, throttle & pitch, etc. "Oh lordy, now you have done it. If this breaks out into 2,000 message thread on the theory of lift, I will be sending you a bandwidth bill plus a certificate for 5 demerits. :)Please, let's not go there guys.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Peter, YOU ARE BACK!!! Where the heck have you been hiding guy?