Crash Modelling......

[STUART_H 12]

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

[HiFlyer 9,359]

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.

[Flying Penguin 44]

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.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

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.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

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.  

[Paraffin 2,197]

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?

[HiFlyer 9,359]

 

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. 

[Flying Penguin 44]

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.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

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.

[WebMaximus 372]

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!

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!

[scotchegg 4,186]

I'm for damage modelling too. Especially as we all transit to VR, visual registers of the consequence of sloppy flying can only help the sense of immersion, and their lack can only hinder.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

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!

 

Well then sorry if I misunderstood. I consider myself corrected!  :blush:

[Flying Penguin 44]

I understand having 100% correct damage modeling would be very hard but I would be very happy with such a simple thing such as after a hard landing you would see the gear actually collapsed under your aircraft due to the hard landing.

 

Can't imagine that would be very hard to implement or a thing that would upset anyone.

 

As I said, I would love realistic damage for realistic scenarios that have teaching value, but that doesn't necessarily include getting the correct effect if you decide on taking a 737 between the wires on the Golden Gate Bridge   :wink:

[Highmike 68]

OT guys. Please show Martin and all those interested in what he has to say the respect they deserve by not rail-roading this topic.

[WebMaximus 372]

As I said, I would love realistic damage for realistic scenarios that have teaching value, but that doesn't necessarily include getting the correct effect if you decide that taking a 737 between the wires on the Golden Gate Bridge  :wink:

 

No, doing acrobatics with a 737 between the wires on the Golden Gate Bridge isn't really my idea of a realistic flight simulator nor my cup of tea :wink: