Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
WebMaximus

Crash Modelling......

Recommended Posts

Regarding the damage modelling I'll keep my fingers crossed you will at least consider making more of it compared to what we have today because I always felt it feels odd that regardless how you handle your aircraft nothing bad will happen unless you actually slam the aircraft into the ground when the sim will just pause and you get a crash message with the aircraft fully intact.

 

That to me always felt very unrealistic.


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post

The more I read about DTG upcoming Flight School and Flight Simulator, the more I get positive about it :-)

 

Maybe I will, again, be able to feel the joy it was when MS FLIGHT was still available and supported by MS ( notice the "and" )...

 

I'll be a first day buyer of Flight School for sure !


Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Uninstalling flightsims is a temptation I can never resist...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Martin - Hi.  thanks for creating this thread.

 

It seems to me that a flight sim should present to a pilot three main settings:

first - on the ground outside the aircraft before a flight.

second - on the ground inside the cockpit

third - in the air inside the cockpit.

 

The second and third areas are both more important than the first (to me) but the third is the whole reason for flying in the first place and so its most important.  With that said, I am hoping that there is a dedicated art lead whose job it is to pay great attention to the sky and how things look from different altitudes under different weather conditions (not forgetting smog effects which appear to behave differently than water vapor -- water vapor is more cloudlike with self shadowing and reflection while smog just tends to dull things out and produce reddish tones).

 

I am worried that the great variety and appearance of all the varied weather conditions may get overlooked and it is really important to keep everything from inside the cockpit looking really good and enjoyable.  Whether it be a clear sunny day with distant towering cumulus or flying underneath some dark low stratus or flying near a thunderstorm with clear sky around but severely decreased localised visibility and rainshafts under the storm...it should all look good.  Im hoping you guys pull it off and I hope your art lead takes note of why it is that clouds look the way they do under the different circumstances.

 

This isnt really a question - I guess youve noticed.  Please keep in mind "dynamic, good looking and enjoyable"  The living world sounds great.  the sky is alive.  To me, 'how it looks (and feels) from the air' is the lions share of flightsim.

  • Upvote 1

|   Dave   |    

my back yard was recently trashed by 100+ mph winds.  dang. no major house damage though.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for this thread Martin, it's good to get something from the horse's mouth. :smile:

 

One of the big reasons FS has lasted so long is that it was made open to 3rd party developers. FSX started badly in this department by only supporting 3ds Max – really expensive – but saved themselves by adding Gmax support to the SDK. MS Flight then went a step worse by using Granny3D – hideously expensive!

 

I hope DTG will support a low-cost or freeware 3d modelling tool. Many of today's developers started that way and if you want DTG FS to be for the long term you'll need new developers learning the craft: they need an inexpensive way in, regardless of what DTG's preferred modelling tool might be. We know a Gmax gamepack is not going to happen – Autodesk nailed that door shut a long time ago, and with very big nails – but I hope you have good news for us there in time.

 

 

Regarding realistic crash damage, iirc that was removed from FSX due to sensitivities after 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post

 

At present there are no plans to offer any backward compatibility for any type of add-ons Stuart.

 

Am I reading that correctly? :huh:


Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post

 

Regarding realistic crash damage, iirc that was removed from FSX due to sensitivities after 9/11.

 

I remember that, and the controversy around it. It took some of the fun out of zooming through urban canyons in a helicopter because there was no risk, but it made sense at the time.

 

DTG could still do what X-Plane does, which is have buildings with no crash detection (eliminating 9/11 "training" issues), but have at least a bit more feedback on hard contact with runways and terrain, instead of simply stopping the sim with a crash message.

 

If you intentionally fly hard into a runway or the ground in X-Plane, the plane will bounce, or skid, or possibly flip over and then come to rest. It won't show any structural damage, but the engines will be inoperative and smoking. The smoke is basically how you know you screwed up, although there should (ideally) be more intermediate damage conditions than blown engines.


X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator on Windows 10 
i7 6700 4.0 GHz, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1660 ti, 1920x1200 monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Am I reading that correctly? :huh:

Yes. And why does that surprise you...? The sim will be 64 bit so this was to be expected...

Share this post


Link to post

I was under the impression that some scenery packages would not need to be recompiled to 64bit, since they do not have executable files. Not that it matters to me. It was only an observation. As for crash damage, I am not aware that MSFS has ever included that. Flight Unlimited 2 and 3 did though. One more item to add to the "Looking Glass did it better than Microsoft" list.


Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post

I was under the impression that some scenery packages would not need to be recompiled to 64bit, since they do not have executable files. Not that it matters to me. It was only an observation.

 

I read that more as "we aren't testing for it or constraining the design by the need to maintain it" rather than "we know for a fact that it won't work".

  • Upvote 2

30xhnrt.png

Banner_MJC1.png

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't see how anyone would want or need a plane crash simulator. Basic mishandling physics and maybe some visual at most should suffice, because anything past that and the only thing to see is heaven.

 

Right, I'm not looking for a full crash simulator. Just a little more feedback for help in training and self-improvement between the two states of "perfect landing" and "crash" which is all we get now. 

 

I do most of my flying in the FSEconomy game, and a lot of it is into small airstrips where I've never been before. I can grease it in most of the time, but occasionally I know I'm doing some kind of cowboy landing maneuver that's too sloppy, and that I wouldn't get away with in real life. The sim isn't helping me self-correct when it can't show me minor, light damage on hard landings.


X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator on Windows 10 
i7 6700 4.0 GHz, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1660 ti, 1920x1200 monitor

Share this post


Link to post

I've never understood this whole damage modeling thing. When people talk about "arcade" flying vs "simulation" especially in GA/Commercial flying, damage modeling leans more towards the "arcade" side of things. Sure, blown engines are helpful, but we don't need wings falling off or visible damage to control surfaces. In real life, people become pilots without having never seen these incidents, and if half of them were to happen, it would likely end in catastrophic loss of the aircraft. I just don't see how anyone would want or need a plane crash simulator. Basic mishandling physics and maybe some visual at most should suffice, because anything past that and the only thing to see is heaven.

 

Well that's easy to fix. Just have crash damage be selectable by the user. That way everyone has a choice.


Just Flight Beta Tester
 
We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 1x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1000GB / 5 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity each / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully none of us in here would enjoy crashing things be it aircraft or other kind of structures. I don't suggest in any way we would like some kind of crash simulator and I'm definitely not asking for crash modeling of buildings etc. Only that it would be a step in the direction of realism IMO to have at least some kind of visual cue/consequence when you screw up during a bad landing for example.

 

For those interested in destroying or blowing things up there are lots of other titles.


Richard Åsberg
Beta tester for FS2Crew and HiFi Simulation Technologies

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully none of us in here would enjoy crashing things be it aircraft or other kind of structures. I don't suggest in any way we would like some kind of crash simulator and I'm definitely not asking for crash modeling of buildings etc. Only that it would be a step in the direction of realism IMO to have at least some kind of visual cue/consequence when you screw up during a bad landing for example.

 

For those interested in destroying or blowing things up there are lots of other titles.

 

That sounds very much like 'my way or the highway'. I much prefer 'to each his own'.

 

There is a subtle innuendo there that crash damage is somehow 'wrong'

 

I can see making that judgement for oneself (flick crash damage off)

 

Less so do I see a reason to curtail others choices.

 

I don't really like kung fu movies, for instance. Should they be banned?

 

Some scientists say its very likely our whole universe is a simulation. If so, the designers included crash damage!  :lol:

  • Upvote 3

Just Flight Beta Tester
 
We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 1x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1000GB / 5 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity each / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

Share this post


Link to post

Can't see if this has been asked already -

 

FSUIPC by Pete D - Is this being implemented into the new sim or will there be a similar facility developed by DTG therefore making FSUIPC redundant?

Share this post


Link to post

That sounds very much like 'my way or the highway'. I much prefer 'to each his own'.

 

There is a subtle innuendo there that crash damage is somehow 'wrong'

 

I can see making that judgement for oneself (flick crash damage off)

 

Less so do I see a reason to curtail others choices.

 

I don't really like kung fu movies, for instance. Should they be banned?

 

Then why draw the line at aircraft damage?  See what the impact of the plane on the world would be.  Kind of BeamNG with wings.

 

It's as much a question of prioritisation of development budget and processing power.  If you spend either on detailed crash physics and graphics, what is less/not developed to allow for this?

  • Upvote 1

30xhnrt.png

Banner_MJC1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    33%
    $8,485.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...