FSX-MS Real Air Duke v2.0 Released

[robert young 2,897]

What are you talking about when you refer to the prevention of the gear and suspension from "failing" on "some" systems.  What particular situation, with crash detection enabled, will cause an anomaly and how will that manifest itself in the form of observable behaviors?  I've tried it both ways, collision on and off, even in moderate crosswind landing with controls crossed, and I have to say I've not yet seen a bit of difference in any ground behaviors.  You're the author, so if you insist that collision detection MUST be off,  then that's the way it shall be, and it's a simple matter to do so without the need for a custom fsx.cfg, but I still don't understand what is likely to happen if it's left on, mistakenly or intentionally.   I'll of course go back into the sim and do some extreme taxying with both on and off, and see if I notice any differences anew, but I haven't so far in the course of normal operations.

 

As to the logic of a survivable belly landing not ending the flight several seconds after the plane has slid to a stop, or a massive crash not ending a flight immediately, I guess that is a matter of taste.  I don't think it would be so realistic to crash the NGX head on into Mt Ranier and have it bounce off...I'm going to be inclined to end the flight myself in the extremly unlikely event that that would happen...I don't crash very often unless I'm just completely screwing off, but especially in planes that don't feature custom crash features, belly landings, or ditchings, I personally find that there is some merit to having it enabled, especially in situations where you aren't sure if a certain contact with the ground would have been a damaging event, because it's not always obvious. 

 

Most users need to have crash detect off otherwise their landing gear fails to come down or gets stuck because of the way we designed the suspension. We enabled belly landings with suitable effects to simulate what happens if you forget to put the gear down. It's as simple as that.

[KingGhidorah 209]

Agree.  With AI issues and various Airport vehicles that often cross a runway or your path without even a hint of recognition -- it's best to have FSX crash detection disabled forever.

 

 

 

 

True, but there again, how realistic is it to fly an NGX by yourself?  I think what Robert is indicating that there are many glitches around crash detection in FSX that could prematurely end a flight when it would be unrealistic to do so ... for example you hit a bump on a runway that was accidentally created by a 3rd party vendor ... it would end your flight there and then.  It's one of those FSX features that for the most part didn't get much development time, more a checkmark on feature than an actually was not well implemented feature (read very low priority).

 

Crash detection and resulting affects are weak in just about any simulation (from racing to flight sim) -- iRacing was struggling with damage for some time and still do, the amount of processing power and physics required to emulate a "crash or damage" is staggering (well beyond common end user hardware).

 

Don't get me wrong, it would be a nice feature in some other product, just not in FSX.  Maybe when Microsoft provide a true physics API (using the GPU) as part of DX we'll see a better future of crash and damage, but in FSX, it's best turned off IMHO and certainly doesn't detract from the excellent work RealAir folks have done.

 

Rob

 

I see the merits on both sides of the argument.  What we need is a new Sim that developers don't always have to come up with unique ways of working around limitations to achieve what they are trying to accomplish.  There is no doubt that the planes being released these days are far more realistic and comprehensive than they were several years ago, but it seems to be increasingly coming with the price of having to do basic things a different way with each plane and each developer, be it realism settings, controller calibrations, or the way they interface with third party addons.   On one plane you need to set up things like this, and on another you have to set up things like that.  In the past there was much more ease, as airplanes were designed to work within the common environment and therefore had common setup needs.   That's a much larger and decidedly philosophical discussion for another thread, probably in Hangar Chat, and not here, but I think that's the reason why some of these concerns are rearing their ugly head.  Personally, I wish that DCS would turn into a civilian sim, and all developers would migrate over there! :He He:

 

How realistic is it to fly NGX alone?  I use MCE :lol:

 

At Rob:  I have no idea what is unique about my system that I have not experienced any ill-effects such as the landing gear failing to extend with crash detection enabled, or why my belly landings are perfectly fine (albeit with the known condition that it exits 20 or 30 seconds after the plane has come to a stop, which I don't mind), but that's what is happening.   I don't consider that a bad thing that everything appears to be working just fine.  If I run into a problem in the future, I'll know what's causing it.  Remember, it was user Slieghtflight above saying how he was dissapointed to have to run a unique setup for this airplane, and I'm just pointing out that if his experience is similar to mine, he might not have to. 

[pete_auau 1,159]

Only  had  the crash detection turned on for a few flights  kept  crashing into unseen objects, or other  objects than turned it off for  ever. Waste of  time  having  it  turned on in the first place as fsx is unrealistic  on how  crash detection works anyway.

[ronsavage 1]

Im having a problem with the checklists ... Its only displaying up to 'pre flight' then repeating itself 3 times. Anyone else have this ? Am I missing something ?

 

Besides this, I love it !!

 

Ryan

[martin-w 3,235]

Most users need to have crash detect off otherwise their landing gear fails to come down or gets stuck because of the way we designed the suspension. We enabled belly landings with suitable effects to simulate what happens if you forget to put the gear down. It's as simple as that.

 

I guess I'm lucky then. I've tried with both crash detection of and off. Makes no difference for me. Gear up landings no problem.

 

 have collision detection on, and it doesn't appear to change anything other than that after a survivable belly landing, the simulation might end a few seconds after your plane has come to a stop.

 

 

Fine for me as well. Something system specific then I suppose.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I agree with Robert and one or two others on this thread. Crash detection in FSX is rubbish and pointless. I had it switched on when I first started using FSX five years ago, and several times I crashed into the top of a tree that was way below my aircraft. As for belly landings, what is the difference between landing with your gear up and then exiting the sim (because you can't move), and FSX telling you that "you have crashed"? It strikes me that the first option is way more realistic.

 

I had crash detection switched on when I used Flight Unlimited 3, but the big difference there was that FU3 simulated the aircraft breaking apart! I remember one incident where I had just taken off on runway 27L at Oakland International, and I was turning left over the Bay for a short hop to San Jose International. I had just levelled off in my Beechjet 400, and was looking around to see what was in sight. I turned the view to the right to look out of the co pilot's window.....a fraction of a second before an AI 777 slammed into me! My aircraft broke into three pieces, and the wreckage crashed into the Bay. Now, that was pretty realistic....apart from the fact that the 777 suffered no damage whatsoever!

 

FSX would have simply stopped the simulation at that point, and told me that I had crashed. Since that is pathetic, I would rather that FSX ignored the "crash", and carried on as if nothing had happened.

[robert young 2,897]

You don't need to exit the sim after belly landing the Duke. After it grinds to a stop having gouged a tear along the runway, simply press G and the gear will extend again, and you can carry on without ending the flight, with everything working again!

[Holdit 551]

I agree with Robert and one or two others on this thread. Crash detection in FSX is rubbish and pointless.

 

As someone else said (can't remember where or who): "It's a flight simulator, not a crash simulator."

[Manny 1,293]

I agree with Robert and one or two others on this thread. Crash detection in FSX is rubbish and pointless.

 

I cannot disagree more with you  and Robert on this. And here is my reason why crash detection is so pivotal for simming.

 

When I am flying IFR and I am in the soup... I want  to know that I nicked a building or a tree.  without this, I am obliveous to this life critical flying experience in simming. Infact it removes almost all the thrill of IFR Flying in the sim. Whats the point of an IFR in a soup  simming if I can pass through ghosts of trees and buildings?

 

Without crash detection, the important functionality is missing. Also many scenery vendors have buildings that are mere ghosts even with crash detection on (sloppy sloppy). Buildings that are near airports should not be ghosts. This ought be a critical criteria in evaliating addon scenery.

 

Ofcourse I wish I got a pop up and a sim pause that I crashed and then continue instead of getting kicked out of  FSX so unceremoniously,

 

But I cannot overstate the importance of crash detection  :mellow: 

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

When I am flying IFR and I am in the soup... I to know that nicked a building or a tree.

 

But the separation provided on the approach won't relate to the trees or buildings in FSX.  Often the trees are way too large...airport authorities would have clipped them down.  Sometimes the buildings are much too large as well.  So, while you may hit an FSX tree or building, in the real world those trees and/or buildings might not actually be a factor on the approach.

 

EDIT:  One example for buildings.  Fly the RNAV/GPS Rwy 29 on autopilot and observe as you pass over the buildings on the south end of the airport.  On my sim...and I don't think I have any non-standard scenery there...it's verrrry close.

[computerflyer 6]

I was landing a taildragger and got too slow on the round out, yanked back abruptly on the stick when nearing the runway, and stalled a couple of feet off the runway, landing tailwheel first.  In real life I assume this would have been an embarrassingly rough landing, with abuse and possible damage to the tailwheel.

 

But what happened in FSX with crash detection on?  The whole tail of the aircraft embedded itself into the runway several feet, the aircraft did a backwards flip, and then exploded in flames!  (This was not one of Real Air's excellent planes, by the way, it was a different brand). 

 

In the future I'll be more careful with my landings, and I'll turn the crash detection off.

[Manny 1,293]

Often the trees are way too large

 

That maybe true... but the idea that the tree limbs are there at that altitude is generally good for precsion flying. If the trees are there and do come in the way of a mormal approach,  then that scenery is flawed... so I am assuing a reasonable clearence for IFR flying. The fact a building may be bigger than reality is not germane to this issue.  It doesn't matter to me that in the sim world, a 3 story building has a ht of a 10 story building.. I just look at it as a clearence I need to avoid a 10 story budiling in real life even though its drawn with 3 storied buiding in the simworld.

[Dominique_K 10,146]

But the separation provided on the approach won't relate to the trees or buildings in FSX.  Often the trees are way too large...airport authorities would have clipped them down.  Sometimes the buildings are much too large as well.  So, while you may hit an FSX tree or building, in the real world those trees and/or buildings might not actually be a factor on the approach.

Not entirely true, Gregg. Flying in the bush brings you occasions to land on short  strips hemmed in the woods where it is critical to follow a steep slope at minimal speed. A possible collision with trees is essential to know whether you do good or not  B)  ! 

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

Guys, I'll absolutely agree that that's true VFR...see and avoid.  But, when you're on instruments you can't see them so you count on the fact that the airport authority and, specifically, the TERPS specialist, have cleared the path for you.  The design of the approach is, amongst other things, based on obstacle clearances.  Now, if the TERPS specialist were to design the approach in FSX he would factor in the larger trees and buildings and a) assign a higher minimum for the approach and/or B) raise the glideslope to get the clearance he needs for safety.  Instead of a 3 degree glideslope you might get 3.1.  In other words, on instruments, if the scenery is correct and you collide with it then you did something wrong (probably).  But if the scenery is wrong and you're in the soup and can't see it to adjust your flight, then the collision is not a problem with you but with the scenery.

[Manny 1,293]

in FSX he would factor in the larger trees and buildings and a

 

I don't get that Gregg.. If a glory mapel tree is represented as twice the size in the sim, just think its a red oak. so the idea that a tree is larger or a building is larger is moot. its the ht of the building and ht of the tree in the approach path that is important and an issue to consider here. And that would be an issue in IFR as well as VFR.  Vistually if you have to approach to land to a runway going through trees then you would complain saying that the airport is odd.. Most of the airports in FSX is not like that.. for the most part we have good clearence for landing in FSX. So making it crashable makes sense for IFR flying.

 

Flying IFR particulalry using the good old and thrilling NDB approaches  in FSX without crash detection is BORING! 

 

When I am flying to land in San Diego runway 27, and I am using an NDB approach (I am not sure if there is one) and its a windy and foggy day and I want make sure I don't run into those buiildings... IF you do a sloppy NDB  approach and you do not have a proper crab adjustment, you could do an inadvertant  circled approach (instead of straight in) and run into near by buildings and for that   the ht of those buildings are reasoable. The fact that a 20 story building has a texture of 4 storied building is not an issue.

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183202-1.html?redirected=1

 

Quote

 

NDB approaches would be simple if it weren't for all that doggone crosswind correction stuff. Well...did you ever consider what would happen if you simply tossed those pesky tracking procedures out the window and simply homed to the station, then held final approach heading after station passage? The results could surprise you...they're better than you might think. (Just don't try this on your ATP checkride!)