Service base failures (PMDG feedback if poss?)

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

As this has come up in the NGX forum, I was wondering if there was any news on whether the 777 would have some sort of multiplier for service based failures?

 

Even though I'll fly it as much as I can, as with the NGX I'm unlikely to see many failures otherwise, which is a shame as I enjoy the challenge!

[Paul Deemer 13]

When asking questions like these here is something to think about. PMDG has always tried to make planes that are as realistic as possible. Because wear and tear causes failures on real world planes that is also modeled in the PMDG planes. However modeling a seperate unrealistic amount computer generated failures is a waste of time and not realistic so I doubt it will be done. You buy a PMDG plane for Realism not Fantasy.

 

If you don't fly enough to see actual wear and tear failures you always have the option of setting off a failure manually.

[FlyVFR 58]

I would like to see this feature built in also.

AVSIM user Alvin wrote a Python script to allow this in the NGX. Look him up. He sent it to me.

fantasy, phantasy [ˈfæntəsɪ]

n pl -sies

1.a. imagination unrestricted by reality

b. (as modifier) a fantasy world

2. a creation of the imagination, esp a weird or bizarre one

3. (Psychology) Psychol

a. a series of pleasing mental images, usually serving to fulfil a need not gratified in reality

b. the activity of forming such images

4. a whimsical or far-fetched notion

5. an illusion, hallucination, or phantom

6. a highly elaborate imaginative design or creation

7. (Music / Classical Music) Music another word for fantasia1 [2] fancy [13] (rarely), development [5]

8. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms)

a. literature having a large fantasy content

b. a prose or dramatic composition of this type

9. (modifier) of or relating to a competition, often in a newspaper, in which a participant selects players for an imaginary ideal team, and points are awarded according to the actual performances of the chosen players fantasy football

vb -sies, -sying, -sied

a less common word for fantasize

[C14 fantasie, from Latin phantasia, from Greek phantazein to make visible]

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fantasy

 

You are lost in a computer simulation pretending to do something you can not or would not do in real life.

Let's not fool ourselves, it's fantasizing.

[kevinh 409]

When asking questions like these here is something to think about. PMDG has always tried to make planes that are as realistic as possible. Because wear and tear causes failures on real world planes that is also modeled in the PMDG planes. However modeling a seperate unrealistic amount computer generated failures is a waste of time and not realistic so I doubt it will be done. You buy a PMDG plane for Realism not Fantasy.

 

If you don't fly enough to see actual wear and tear failures you always have the option of setting off a failure manually.

I see nothing wrong in giving the user a scale factor to apply if they want to accelerate the wear and tear process. Purists can leave it at 1.0 and see realistic rates. Providing such an adjustment does not decrease realism for those who choose not to use it.

 

People who fly less often will never see the service based feature in operation as it now is. It simply isn't a substitute to suggest they manually or randomly select failures. Service based failures will come up in a different way, depending on how frequently equipment breaks down in reality.

 

In real life you aren't the only pilot flying a particular airframe. Other pilots will fly it in between time, clocking up usage far more rapidly. If anything it's rather unrealistic to only consider one pilot's hours.

 

Also service based failures apply to each tail number separately. If you fly several different liveries, hours on each will mount up more slowly. So a time scalar would help here too.

[Paul Deemer 13]

I didn't mean to imply that it was wrong to have the option, just not realistic. But maybe Ryan will post in here laster and let you know if that option is going to be available or not.

[nrcrate 40]

I would love something like this as well as maybe a way to have all the models use the same file and share hours. I fly the NGX a ton, and I have yet to have a service based failure. I'd love an improved system in the 777.

[captainsazzman 83]

When asking questions like these here is something to think about. PMDG has always tried to make planes that are as realistic as possible. Because wear and tear causes failures on real world planes that is also modeled in the PMDG planes. However modeling a seperate unrealistic amount computer generated failures is a waste of time and not realistic so I doubt it will be done. You buy a PMDG plane for Realism not Fantasy.

 

If you don't fly enough to see actual wear and tear failures you always have the option of setting off a failure manually.

 

 

 

It's a simulator, he has the right to ask for such a feature to enhance the fun factor. If what you say is true and it is unrealistic and a waste of time, then modelling a 10 second IRS alignment was a waste of time, modelling cold and dark too (since pilots almost never start with cold and dark) and modelling an exterior model is a waste of time too since real pilots only see the cockpit and nothing else

 

 

It would be nice if accelerated failures were added

[Airbusman330 300]

Providing such an adjustment does not decrease realism for those who choose not to use it.

 

People who fly less often will never see the service based feature in operation as it now is. It simply isn't a substitute to suggest they manually or randomly select failures. Service based failures will come up in a different way, depending on how frequently equipment breaks down in reality.

 

In real life you aren't the only pilot flying a particular airframe. Other pilots will fly it in between time, clocking up usage far more rapidly. If anything it's rather unrealistic to only consider one pilot's hours.

 

Also service based failures apply to each tail number separately. If you fly several different liveries, hours on each will mount up more slowly. So a time scalar would help here too.

 

Bingo, I rarely fly the 737 for now due to the DC-9 and its rarely gaining hours so I would like to clock up usage as well to simulate the plane being used by other crews.

[JC75 22]

On what basis is it unrealistic?

[littlewill 0]

I think there's something called "random failures". It's in every PMDG aircraft. And can everyone else stop trolling him.

[JaseMelbo 391]

I see nothing wrong with the OP's request,

 

Why do we need to be so serious. It's a flight simulator or frick sake. It challenges our minds and opens up the field of fantasy for those who may never get an opportunity to fly.

 

Kudos to vdubbin for outlining the fact.

 

Cheers.

 

Jas

[Paul_Smith 92]

I like the idea.

[willywonka 36]

I want it. The plane "should" still be used while I'm not flying it.

[Irishcurse 234]

I just don't see the point of the developers wasting time with failures. They can add that in with a service pack later. I don't use them myself. Would anyone not purchase the aircraft it it didn't have failures? Oh and to anyone that says "yes"..... liars

[RudiJG1 172]

Well, that settles it then, no? I do so enjoy the level of discourse one can see here deep in the bowels of AVSIM.

 

Knowing both what PMDG is capable of and what they've included with their aircraft so far, I'd say failures will be a part of the T7 and, who knows, perhaps they'll continue to push the bounds of FSX even on this front.