Realistic failure setting?

[Vulkan 2]

Is there any way to set the random failures to less than 1 per 10 hours? The way I look at it, it is not realistic to encounter 1 failure (that could be anything from a failed lamp to a major engine fire) every ten hours of flight.

 

I have already turned on the service based failuers, but I think it would add more realism if other systems could fail as well on random, but not as often as once per ten hours.

 

I tried to type 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 and such in the CDU where you type in the events, but that only gives me a 0. So, maybe there is no way to have less than 1 fail per 10 hours?

 

Anybody knows if that is possible? And if it is, what would be a realistic setting? I imagine something like 0.0000000000001. :)

 

I realize that it would not likely happen, but it still adds some realism to know that it COULD happen.

 

Any thoughts?

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

Yeah I agree 1 in 10 is too often, especially for the upcoming 777 long haul flights which at the lowest random failures (not service failures) would be more than 1 per flight!

[kevinh 409]

Service based failures give you realistic failure intervals. If you want to choose random failures it's rather pointless to choose a time longer than your current flight time. The idea, surely, is to preselect the failure you want to experience but have it trigger at a random time in that flight.

[Vulkan 2]

Service based failures give you realistic failure intervals. If you want to choose random failures it's rather pointless to choose a time longer than your current flight time. The idea, surely, is to preselect the failure you want to experience but have it trigger at a random time in that flight.

 

I understand. I was just thinking over more than just one flight. Let's say that I have on random that somthing out of the regular may happen maybe once or twice in the planes lifetime. Now, I would probably never experience that, but it would add realism to know that it could happen. I was just thinking that you could alter that with the random failures, but I guess that it is supposed to simulate flight by flight, just as you describe it. Well, still a great product! :)

[adamant365 28]

As far as I know, Service Based Failures are exactly what you are looking for. PMDG gathered a lot of data on real-life failure rates and incorporated them into the service based failures. There are .ini files for each livery you have installed which records the total time you have flown that variant and calculates when failures *might* happen.

 

So for instance, if in real life, one of the two CFM56's on a 737NG fails every 100,000 hours (just making this up), you can reasonably expect to have a single-engine failure once every 100,000 hours. You may never fly enough to have it happen, but it's certainly possible. PMDG use real-world data to figure out when you should have a failure. If you enable service-based failures, you should see less common than 1 failure every 10 hours, but certainly more frequently than never.

 

Please, someone correct me if this is an inaccurate post about the NGX failure model.

 

EDIT: By the way, I believe service-based failures apply to all systems on the aircraft. The systems that are listed that need "Maintenance" every X hours are just ones you need to address with preventative maintenance, i.e. topping off Hydraulic fluids, etc.

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

Service based failures give you realistic failure intervals. If you want to choose random failures it's rather pointless to choose a time longer than your current flight time. The idea, surely, is to preselect the failure you want to experience but have it trigger at a random time in that flight.

 

Service based failures is basically never due to the aircrafts being very reliable and we simmers not keeping logging up hours like the real ones (for obvious reasons) and then 1/10 random failures is very unreliable, surely there can be a middle ground. Wanting random failures doesn't mean you want a failure every flight, it isn't pointless as you put it. I personally like to have a reason to check on things from time to time rather than sit their knowing it wont or will have a failure during the flight.

 

 

 

EDIT,

 

I have asked this before but I didn't get a answer. Has anyone yet even had a service based failure? I don't mean due to abuse like switching on and off the APU or elec hyd pumps too many times, duct overheat due to hot weather on the ground or over wing door lights, I mean actual service based failures?

 

 

I am not making out like Service based failures is a bad thing, because I think the whole idea is fantastic, it's just as simmers we can/wish to only put a certain amount of time into the hobby and will likely most likely never see any issue so some more random failure options customization would be nice.

[kevinh 409]

I understand. I was just thinking over more than just one flight. Let's say that I have on random that somthing out of the regular may happen maybe once or twice in the planes lifetime. Now, I would probably never experience that, but it would add realism to know that it could happen. I was just thinking that you could alter that with the random failures, but I guess that it is supposed to simulate flight by flight, just as you describe it. Well, still a great product! :)

Pilots know they will almost certaily never get an engine failure at V1 in real life, but they know with equal certainty they will get one in the simulator. They just don't know when. In the NGX there isn't someone else to give you a failure when you are least expecting it so you have to programme it yourself. Thus it ceases to be based on actual failure rates and becomes an event you want to happen but that takes you by surprise. At least that's my take on it.

[kevinh 409]

Service based failures is basically never due to the aircrafts being very reliable and we simmers not keeping logging up hours like the real ones (for obvious reasons) and then 1/10 random failures is very unreliable, surely there can be a middle ground. Wanting random failures doesn't mean you want a failure every flight, it isn't pointless as you put it. I personally like to have a reason to check on things from time to time rather than sit their knowing it wont or will have a failure during the flight.

Sorry, I meant that I'd find it pointless, not that it would be pointless for everybody. If I wanted to experience a failure and practice the relevant procedure I wouldn't want to select it and wonder whether it will occur in the next few flights. I would want the failure on today's flight but I don't want to know when it will occur.

 

With service based failures things are supposed to go wrong according to normal wear and tear. But the rate at which failures occur depends on how often you fly a given tail number. Simmers who fly frequently will have more failures sooner than those who fly less often or who fly several liveries. It would be nice if the overall rate of failure could be customised to reflect individual simmers habits.

[Vulkan 2]

Sorry, I meant that I'd find it pointless, not that it would be pointless for everybody. If I wanted to experience a failure and practice the relevant procedure I wouldn't want to select it and wonder whether it will occur in the next few flights. I would want the failure on today's flight but I don't want to know when it will occur.

 

With service based failures things are supposed to go wrong according to normal wear and tear. But the rate at which failures occur depends on how often you fly a given tail number. Simmers who fly frequently will have more failures sooner than those who fly less often or who fly several liveries. It would be nice if the overall rate of failure could be customised to reflect individual simmers habits.

 

I understand. I guess they have thought this over and it sounds good.

 

I usually fly three different tailnumbers (600, 700 and 800). So it will take me three times as long to wear and tear my aircrafts. It would be cool with a feature where you could couple tails together (maybe via the livery manager). Because when I fly the 800, someone else in my simulated world is of course flying the 700. And when I take charge of the 700 the next time, it would have some more service hours. Wouldn't that be cool? :)

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

With service based failures things are supposed to go wrong according to normal wear and tear. But the rate at which failures occur depends on how often you fly a given tail number. Simmers who fly frequently will have more failures sooner than those who fly less often or who fly several liveries.

 

 

That's the thing, have any simmer actually had a genuine service failure yet? Airliners are just too damned reliable for us :P

 

 

It would be nice if the overall rate of failure could be customised to reflect individual simmers habits.

 

That's all I ask.

[elvisgrotto 0]

In the NGX there isn't someone else to give you a failure when you are least expecting it so you have to programme it yourself.

 

On this subject, is there a way to trigger 737NGX failures remotely from a networked machine or even another machine somewhere on the internet? Could be fun times making your friends sweat.

[kjjj11223344 48]

 

 

I understand. I guess they have thought this over and it sounds good.

 

I usually fly three different tailnumbers (600, 700 and 800). So it will take me three times as long to wear and tear my aircrafts. It would be cool with a feature where you could couple tails together (maybe via the livery manager). Because when I fly the 800, someone else in my simulated world is of course flying the 700. And when I take charge of the 700 the next time, it would have some more service hours. Wouldn't that be cool? :)

Can't you just open the aircraft .ini files and copy over the timers from one livery to another? I don't know if this works or not, but I personally have been doing this, so that all of my liveries have the same use relative to each other, because that way I'll have more chances of experiencing a failure regardless of the livery I choose.

[Vulkan 2]

Can't you just open the aircraft .ini files and copy over the timers from one livery to another? I don't know if this works or not, but I personally have been doing this, so that all of my liveries have the same use relative to each other, because that way I'll have more chances of experiencing a failure regardless of the livery I choose.

 

That's a goog idea. How do I do that? Where is the ini-file and what should I look for?

[simon-flight 0]

Does anyone know or could hazard a guess as to how many hours an airframe may fly in a given week ?

 

I fly the NGX about 4-6 hours a week so it would be nice to have the serviced based failures taking the 'other' pilots hours into consideration aswell.

[Fabo 213]

Does anyone know or could hazard a guess as to how many hours an airframe may fly in a given week ?

 

Depends on an airline. Southwest says they will do about 80-85 hours per week with their 737s