Curious all of simmer preference failure simulation.

It makes those long-hauls over the Atlantic more interesting. Especially landing in KEF enroute to London after a cargo fire...

Yep I use the failure system in every flight, gives me all the more reason to keep an eye on things.

I like failure simulation but I want it to have realistic settings as to frequency and type of failure.

Well, since the 737NG is an airliner, it would be very unlikely that something in the aircraft is not functioning or that failures occur during flight. I don't want to take care of the aircraft, I trust my maintanance crew. :P

I just want to enter my cockpit and fly to my destination.

 

Some folks here like the failure simulation though, it is indeed a great feature, remembers me of A2A's Accusim.

Only use Service based failures. Makes a flight more interesting.

No never, I don't like it, but fortunately I have a very good maintenance crew. :Liar:

Serious, setting up the aircraft and flying safely is difficult enough for me.

 

Eric

The good thing about the PMDG failures is the huge range, the bulk of them are just glitches rather the full on engine fires or cargo fires which are remote.

 

Passenger aircraft have weird glitches all the time, for me I like to keep random failures on since it keeps me on my toes and I normally end up learning something new, even if it's a minor fault with the electrical system, you get to see first hand how the rundency works and how each system is interlinked.

 

Regards

I only fly add-on airliners with failure simulation. It's a shame more developers dont bother putting it in.

I only use service based failures but aside that no, I prefer to have a normal flight.

For me the failure will let me need to know how the system is work,also need to planned more complete flight plan not only one destination,because every situation is possible.

NGX service based failures only. Just enough to keep you on your toes in "case" something may happen, but you know that your wing won't be falling off anytime soon.

Well, I did not know how to vote on that one. I only fly PMDG stuff and my big gripe, one of the only ones in fact is that they only give you the least 1 in 10 hours. For a guy that does really long flights this is to high of an intervalk for everyday use. I really wish they had an option for 1 in 100 hours or service based failures for other than NGX. I use service based in the NGX but the MD11 needs this as well. I really hope the 777 and 747v2 has service based. I also have a life and do not sit at my desk for those 12 hour long hauls so I might be sleeping or off at work and cannot afford a failure while no ones home!So at least with service based I can say it probably will not happen while at work and I am here most of the time so that the kind of failure mode that is most realistic. I think if I were a real MD11 pilot or NGX for that matter the failures module for 1 in /interval hour would be the way to go to get sharp in the real airplane and be prepared but short of that I really like service based and really dislike no failures at all because it lulls me into complacency like I would not be in the real airplane thereby reducing realism as well.

 

My problem with service based failures in the NGX though is that nothing has broken in over 800 hours! Except a duct overheat once.

+1 @ Marc I found the MD-11s low failure interval VERY annoying.

I am really rooting for the service based failures and an option to go all the way as high as 1 in 100 hours or even 1 in 250 hours or even better for things like engine failures 1 in 3000 hours.