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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites

 

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

 

Am I reading that correctly? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At present there are no plans to offer any backward compatibility for any type of add-ons Stuart. However, we will be continuing to support FSX: SE for the foreseeable future so if you have a large collection of add-ons you can continue to use just like you can now. 

 

- Martin

 

This Martin, whilst being fine looking at the 'long game', is extremely disappointing for die hard simmers. Especially since Dovetails own press release stated the following:

 

Qoute

In 2014, we acquired the rights to develop and publish new flight simulators utilizing Microsoft’s genre-defining flight simulation technology. This means that both Flight School and Flight Simulator are based on an evolution of Flight Simulator X technology.

Unquote

 

I also believe that take-up of the new FS will be slow if Scenery addons like ORBX Global, Vector & LC, and Add-on Airports are not compatible, or cannot be converted. If as the above statement suggested, I cannot see why the same LC, texture tile manipulation and mesh handling would not be used.

 

I can understand that complicated Add-on aircraft like PMDG may not be compatible in a 64bit compiled game with perhaps different hooks etc into the sim, without necessitating changes or new development. Unless the new FS aircraft included are comparable to the likes of PMDG, Aerosoft, A2A, Carenado etc, then serious simmers will most likely boycott it, and stick with FSXSE or box FSX

 

Many of the thousands of serious simmers around the globe are members of VAs, flying livery versions of these top Add-on aircraft, and unless such aircraft can be flown within the new sim, it would not be used for some time by these VA members.

 

In addition many simmers have hardware and Add-on software dependant on Pete Dowson FSUIPC program. Are Dovetail in conversation with Pete in respect of the new FS development?

 

Slow take-up of the new FS could spell it's own demise. This should be of grave concern to Dovetail.

 

Not withstanding my above comments, in the long term a 'state of the art' FS is good news for Flight Simulation, but Dovetail must acknowledge that it may take years to reap the benefits of radical development and make sure that it doesn't gather dust on the shelf after a while.

 

Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Its an old argument and we've been there and done that. The original version was that everything not having to do with flying took away resources (of some sort or another) from actual simulation. But that's an argument from a time when resources were much more severely limited.

 

Now, trees wave in the wind, cars follow traffic laws, Trains flow along their tracks, birds fly and animals roam, dolphins jump.......

 

And the same old argument lingers to support what I strongly suspect is actually a philosophical objection to crash modeling. 

 

I don't really buy it, especially in a world where our severely underused graphics cards have physics built in and more than enough power to depict pretty much anything we want.

 

Modern open worlds rest on a base of allowing users choice in how they interact with the world. Users can explore and try different things to push the boundaries and test the veracity of the environment. Every restriction encountered is an attack on immersion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an old argument and we've been there and done that. The original version was that everything not having to do with flying took away resources (of some sort or another) from actual simulation. But that's an argument from a time when resources were severely limited.

 

Now, trees wave in the wind, cars follow traffic laws, Trains flow along their tracks, birds fly and animals roam.......

 

And the same old argument lingers to support what I strongly suspect is actually a philosophical objection to crash modeling. 

 

I don't really buy it, especially in a world where our severely underused graphics cards have physics built in and more than enough power to depict pretty much anything we want.

 

It may be an old argument, but it's as valid today as it ever was.  Ask any project manager of any discipline, technical or not.

 

I don't give a flying monkey's about some kids (big or small) wanting to see their favorite aircraft explode spectacularly against a local landmark, and would welcome good crash physics, however good crash physics are hard.  Very hard.  I'm not talking about GTA V style "clip a tree and BOOM", I mean the sort of nuanced physics that show everything from bending a wingtip because you lost it and ground looped, to losing a wing because you taxied into a terminal at speed.  Meaningful feedback for real-life screw-ups, not silly gamey physics.  But no flight simulator has done it well yet (not even DCS or BOS), as for it to be meaningful in a civilian context (where touching a wing or bursting a tyre on a hard landing is more likely than having a wing shot off) it needs to be subtle and flexible, not simply damage boxes, a handful of removable parts and fire effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give a flying monkey's about some kids (big or small) wanting to see their favorite aircraft explode spectacularly against a local landmark, and would welcome good crash physics, however good crash physics are hard.

 

Rise of Flight does it very well, as do DCs and others. The amount of resources applied really doesn't have to be all or nothing either, and shouldn't DTG decide that? Fsx itself  didn't start with the level of 'realism' available now. DTG's offering would probably of necessity also start simple, but there's no real reason not to have the basics there to build on from the very beginning. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is unnecessary, and backs you into a corner, limiting your options for later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be an old argument, but it's as valid today as it ever was.  Ask any project manager of any discipline, technical or not.

 

I don't give a flying monkey's about some kids (big or small) wanting to see their favorite aircraft explode spectacularly against a local landmark, and would welcome good crash physics, however good crash physics are hard.  Very hard.  I'm not talking about GTA V style "clip a tree and BOOM", I mean the sort of nuanced physics that show everything from bending a wingtip because you lost it and ground looped, to losing a wing because you taxied into a terminal at speed.  Meaningful feedback for real-life screw-ups, not silly gamey physics.  But no flight simulator has done it well yet (not even DCS or BOS), as for it to be meaningful in a civilian context (where touching a wing or bursting a tyre on a hard landing is more likely than having a wing shot off) it needs to be subtle and flexible, not simply damage boxes, a handful of removable parts and fire effects.

 

I feel the same, practical failures based on minor, non catastrophic incidents are welcome. However, like you said, it is very hard and time consuming to do this in a high fidelity way. I would MUCH rather have them invest their time and efforts in development of other core parts of the sim than this.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaningful feedback for real-life screw-ups, not silly gamey physics.  But no flight simulator has done it well yet (not even DCS or BOS), as for it to be meaningful in a civilian context (where touching a wing or bursting a tyre on a hard landing is more likely than having a wing shot off) it needs to be subtle and flexible, not simply damage boxes, a handful of removable parts and fire effects.

 

Again, I don't think any of us are looking for explosions. We have the combat sims for that. What I'm looking for is a range of light damage that helps me fly better, and gives me specific feedback for what I've done wrong. There is a difference between dropping out of a too-high flare and blowing a tire, vs. pulling too far on rotation and getting a tail strike. 
 
These are real-world aviation events, after all. The prototype Airbus A321NEO just suffered a tail strike a few days ago, when practicing touch-and-go landings. Apparently the 321 series is somewhat prone to tail strikes. Shouldn't things like this be simulated if the engine can handle it?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Again, I don't think any of us are looking for explosions. We have the combat sims for that. What I'm looking for is a range of light damage that helps me fly better, and gives me specific feedback for what I've done wrong. There is a difference between dropping out of a too-high flare and blowing a tire, vs. pulling too far on rotation and getting a tail strike. 
 
These are real-world aviation events, after all. The prototype Airbus A321NEO just suffered a tail strike a few days ago, when practicing touch-and-go landings. Apparently the 321 series is somewhat prone to tail strikes. Shouldn't things like this be simulated if the engine can handle it?

 

 

I vote yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rise of Flight does it very well, as do DCs and others. The amount of resources applied really doesn't have to be all or nothing either, and shouldn't DTG decide that? Fsx itself  didn't start with the level of 'realism' available now. DTG's offering would probably of necessity also start simple, but there's no real reason not to have the basics there to build on from the very beginning. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is unnecessary, and backs you into a corner.

 

To be fair, RoF does it ok, however DCS most certainly does not (at least in the minor damage arena).

 

DTG's budget is limited (in the sense that it is not infinite, not that it is small), therefore it becomes a question of priorities.  Where do you draw the line?  Realistic, reasonable every day events? Barnstorming accidents?  Full on Twin Towers simulation? The mere existance of a line creates a situation of "my way or the high way", at least from the perspective of those that would move it closer to the "perfect" end of the scale.

 

Again, I don't think any of us are looking for explosions. We have the combat sims for that. What I'm looking for is a range of light damage that helps me fly better, and gives me specific feedback for what I've done wrong. There is a difference between dropping out of a too-high flare and blowing a tire, vs. pulling too far on rotation and getting a tail strike. 
 
These are real-world aviation events, after all. The prototype Airbus A321NEO just suffered a tail strike a few days ago, when practicing touch-and-go landings. Apparently the 321 series is somewhat prone to tail strikes. Shouldn't things like this be simulated if the engine can handle it?

 

 

I would love "a range of light damage that helps me fly better".  I feel that much more than that would be development effort that could be better spent elsewhere.  That's not (to Devon's point) because I object to people exploring the extreme end of the collision damage scale for philosophical reasons.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, RoF does it ok, however DCS most certainly does not (at least in the minor damage arena).

 

DTG's budget is limited (in the sense that it is not infinite, not that it is small), therefore it becomes a question of priorities.  Where do you draw the line?  Realistic, reasonable every day events? Barnstorming accidents?  Full on Twin Towers simulation? The mere existance of a line creates a situation of "my way or the high way", at least from the perspective of those that would move it closer to the "perfect" end of the scale.

 

In my view anything that speaks of realistic consequences for your actions is a further step towards perfection than planes that go "bonk" when they hit something. It was mentioned earlier that DTG had an idea of planes gathering wear and tear with use, and having to be maintained. Part of that wear and tear should rightfully be damage from rough landings, storms, and yes clipped wings etc.

 

If DTG tells me my wing is damaged and it will cost me $10,000, while my plane in actuality still looks perfectly pristine and the only indicator of the damage is a word bubble as I land..... For me that's a strong mark against immersion.

 

If anything, that would be a feature I would quickly disable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Not really sure if I understand this post, my way or the highway?

 

Having an option where people can choose if they want damage modeling or not sounds like a great idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this