I wouldn't put much thought into it. DTG's history on trainsim shows the same aversion to realistic crashes and preference for collisions that go "BONK" as FSX does. You might as well be playing with trains made out of wooden blocks.

Perhaps Train Simulator users prefer driving to crashing?

Perhaps Train Simulator users prepare driving to crashing?

 

Well, the only way to find out is to offer the option..........

 

It could be as simple as a toggle: damage? Yes/No.

 

Just as simple as flight model: Real/arcade

 

Giving a user choices usually goes over much better than arbitrary restrictions. I mean, if we are restricting things "just because" why not block people from flying under bridges, or landing on highways? Or any number of things we can restrict just because the designers felt like it.

 

I think a lot of people who saw Nerd3's review of Aerofly went and grabbed it exactly because the crash's made it look like fun, and the designers were open enough to allow that freedom.

 

 

I think damage model is person dependent. Some don't care, some do. Personally, since I fly on Vatsim, I don't care because I have to have it off just in case. To me, given all the problems of Flight Sim, it's low down. But, that's my opinion and many will disagree

Its as easy as a toggle that says crashes: Yes/No

No it isn't. The crash details have to be modelled. How many FS modelers spend the time and effort to model crashes?

No it isn't. The crash details have to be modelled. How many FS modelers spend the time and effort to model crashes?

 

The answer would be few FSX based ones and most other ones. Take a head count. Most sims do damage modeling. For every FSX there are things like Aerofly, Wings of Prey, Rise of Flight, War Thunder, DCS, and it goes on and on.

I think damage model is person dependent. Some don't care, some do.

 

Yeah, its not like a demand or anything, but while using FLIGHT, one of the most basic activities was people chasing each other across the sky in mock dogfights, and attempting to crash into each other. Essentially a big game of tag. For pilots, well, that sort of thing may be beneath them, but it brought a lot of people into the game, and I think such play is a basic facet of human group behavior. Look at FSX-SE and find the videos not made by professional pilots (or hopefuls) and what do you see? People crashing into each other, doing loops, hitting things, laughing..... exploring!

 

If DTG blocks or restricts that for some philosophical reason, then they restrict one part of the market for their product as well. (or if the sim is easily modded, people will program the ability right back in!)

If I was to be one of the most talented programmers for flight simulation, I sure as **** wouldn't waste my time, dealing with arcade type crash sequences. The object is flight, or learning flight. If you want to crash a real flying airplane, then R/C would be a better choice. It even has a few economic ramifications, when you crash. Most of the other mentioned sims, use scenarios in which crashes as part of the actual event. For flight simming purposes, you'll learn NOTHING from a animated simulated crash.  It would be like using a flight sim to determine if you could really out climb that high altitude mountain pass, or make that takeoff with too much weight and high density altitude on a warm summer day. 

 

Oh BTW------------- I often try to out climb those mountain passes, as well as high density altitude takeoffs. Happily, it's only a simulation. I just don't expect some gory animation of the after effects. 

Oh BTW------------- I often try to out climb those mountain passes, as well as high density altitude takeoffs. Happily, it's only a simulation. I just don't expect some gory animation of the after effects.

 

And that's the problem of course, restricting the market to one particular style of play, or locking it to any one particular vision. The sim is not only for one person, or even type of person: That sort of restrictiveness is the very definition of a niche market, and I assume that DTG wants as broad a market as possible (and as many types of players as possible)

 

Not everyone is flying to learn to be a real life pilot, or has even the slightest interest in doing so. In fact I suspect the vast majority of people just want to fly and explore and have fun. A sim aimed at pilots is very probably a sim that has way too few users to support its own further development. We've been there and done that.

 

DTG is a company that makes simulations with a strong nod to accessibility and gaming sensibilities, not a pilot training academy.

he answer would be few FSX based ones and most other ones. Take a head count. Most sims do damage modeling. For every FSX there are things like Aerofly, Wings of Prey, Rise of Flight, War Thunder, DCS, and it goes on and on.

 

That wasn't the point.

 

The point that it costs money to develop a flight simulation . DTG has to balance its development costs against its revenue achieve a valiable product..

 

Based on the views in this thread, some people expect to get a new Ferrari at the price of a Ford. They will be  disappointed

 

YIf DTG blocks or restricts that for some philosophical reason, then they restrict one part of the market for their product as well. (or if the sim is easily modded, people will program the ability right back in!)

 

On the same argument, do you expect Ford to sell 200 mph cars?

That wasn't the point. The point that it costs money to develop a flight simulation . DTG has to balance its development costs against its revenue achieve a valiable product. Based on the views in this thread, some people expect to get a new Ferrari at the price of a Ford. They will be disappointed

 

Ok. Just a few pages ago you were talking about the whole thread being speculation. Now you are here apparently speculating about that budget that DTG has available to apply to this effort: Something that neither nor or I can know, unless you are claiming inside information of some sort. This thread began as a request as to what some here might want to see for features, and I am answering that request. But you can''t have it both ways. How do you know that DTG has not planned to include crash damage all along, and budgeted accordingly? The answer is that you don't, and can't, and hence you are simply being argumentative.

 

An the same argument, do you expect Ford to sell 200 mph cars?

 

If Ford asks me what I want, and I ask for a 200 mph car, then oh, well..... they can do with the request what they want, can't they? Just like they can do what they want with a request for essentially a pilot training sim from a gaming oriented company. We are all on the same level, here.

 

We can ask, and we might receive........ Or maybe not!

HiFlyer, while I respect what your saying in what people want out of a flight game/simulator (lets not go there), the main objective is to fly a plane. GA, or Tube. If i don't give a ###### about flying I'll play a game/sim where I can do that. Crash, shoot them down, not give an eff about stands, STARS, SIDS, real navigation etc. I'll fly in GTA if I want to fly my plane in to another plane or kamakazi in to a road and parachute out. We don't want that in FSX/P3D/Xplane.

 

Yes, we want to have a big market so companies want to develop and can develop planes, airports, scenery et al and profit from it, want to do it etc. But, crashing in to a building is not what most are asking for. Let me put it this way; given all the challenges that the flight sim community faces, is crashing in to Big Ben one of them?

 

IL2 Stormick is great for WW2 bombers. Do I expect NBD's, VOR's and be able to fly through real Stalingrad with correct radio navigration et al? No. Not at all.

Let me put it this way; given all the challenges that the flight sim community faces, is crashing in to Big Ben one of them?

 

I submit that its not something many here in this community might actively request, mostly because I think FSX and its siblings took it out of style, but that doesn't do a thing to invalidate the base expectation of some segments to see such things, as basic and ubiquitous an expectation in modern programs as seasons.

 

This sounds essentially like the old argument that got us here in the first place. Leave the games for the gamers, and the sims for the simmers. So the gamers leave to play War Thunder, and we possibly end up (again) with not enough people to support robust development of a sim. Do we really expect DTG to follow the same path Microsoft did, and allow their product to wander into the path of an extremely limited market? Wasn't the entire idea of Flight to break out of that straightjacket?

 

Microsoft did it with all the grace of a wounded hippo, and flubbed the ball unmercifully, but I hope DTG is smarter.

On the same argument, do you expect Ford to sell 200 mph cars?

 

You mean like this? :smile:

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2017-ford-gt-official-photos-and-info-news

Aerofly FS - Epic Landings - 1080p

Flight Unlimited 3 - Random Crashing

 

 

 

 

You realize that one of the largest complaints from old fans of the Elite series is that the game has been "Dumbed down" (I hate that term) to allow for accessibility to a wider audience?

 

 

 

Cause those two are just two "Dumbed down" GAMES  of a Flight SIMULATOR.

 

And that was check mate and the gig is up. No more games please. Thanks.

 

Cheers,

I think the question is: does adding some level of damage/crash modeling increase sales beyond the additional budget (in terms of money and time) needed to model them? And does it increase sales _more_ than using that time/budget to improve other aspects of the simulator (e.g. better lighting, better scenery, better aircrafts/FM, better environmental effects etc.)? If the answer to either question is "no", then it would not make sense to add damage modeling. Of course it's hard to know the answer to either question.

 

As an analogy, Laminar Research has taken a lot of flak because they developed X-Plane for mobile devices instead of focusing on the "serious" desktop version. But the truth is, as Ben Supnik said, that the big revenues from the mobile version gave Laminar Research more resources to "spend" now and in the future in the improvement of the desktop version.