Crash Modelling......

[Paraffin 2,197]

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.

 

That would actually be less upsetting than what X-Plane shows after a hard landing, with black smoke rising from the engines. I see that and I think FIRE.  Meanwhile the 3D pilot and copilot dudes are still sitting calmly in the cockpit.  :smile:  I think they use that black smoke effect because it's already in the sim, for indicating an engine failure in flight from exceeding RPM or other failure modes.

 

There used to be a "blown tire" text notice you'd get in X-Plane that triggered at some point below the blown engine effect from a hard landing. But I haven't seen that in a while. Not sure if they did away with it.

 

BTW, while we're on the subject of hazards, is there any chance the new DTG sim will include things currently in X-Plane like in-flight icing? Or surface friction and braking differences between dry, wet, and icy runways? Those don't seem to be a heavy hit on the CPU or GPU because they're just adjustments to the flight model response. No need for actual graphics effects like iced-up wings to get the point across. When you feel the plane get heavy and not want to fly, that's enough!

[WebMaximus 372]

 

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.

 

 

I fully agree we don't need to take this discussion about crash modeling any further.

 

However I don't see how it was initially any more OT than anything else that has been discussed in here so far. I thought this thread was just about that...discussing what the new FS will be like and what it will/might include and what we the users would like to see. Some people have more realistic built-in ATC on the top of their list while others have some kind of damage modeling.

 

Oh well...let's move on before someone gets upset.

[Highmike 68]

My apologies to anyone who may have been offended but it occurred to me that if you want a wishlist of features you'd like to see in the sim then wouldn't it be better to start a new topic?

 

Better yet a dedicated Dovetail FS forum.

[jcomm 5,890]

Damage modeling doesn't have to be so sophisticated like in a Combat sim.

 

It is presently very well done in il-2 BoS and RoF, not quite that much in DCS, acceptably in il2 CloD, and the best in Aerofly FS among civil sims.

 

In Flight Unlimited 1, 2 and 3, it was also very well done.

 

I think that for a civil sim, something in the line we have now with Aerofly FS is good enough.

 

 

But in RoF and BoS it is GREAT too...

 

 

[tonywob 4,768]

Wow, I hadn't realised AeroFlyFS had damage modelling. I really don't like in X-Plane when you have a crash or land too hard (mostly in helicopters), you end up shooting into space or you get a flat tyre in a helicopter, it's so poorly done that I just switch it off and make everything invincible. Same in FSX

[jcomm 5,890]

Being based mostly in FSX I also do not believe DTG's Flight School can get any better than what FSX / P3D presently offer. It's something that I guess would involve, among other things, a complete redesign of their physics model...

 

Even for the Flight Simulator tittle, to be released latter this year, I think it's too much from us to expect that this could change, unless DTG decides a complete remake of the FDM and overall physics model in their flight simulator.

 

I don't own any other sims, train or car or truck, since I never found any interest in playing other than flying simulator games, so I don't know if their train simulation has this type of effects better modeled ?

 

Anyway, not really a factor for me - it is more than enough to have something happening if I don't use my engine(s) as supposed or force the aircraft structure above it's limits. A popup message saying - you've broken your aircraft!!! - is good enough for me :-)

[Pastaiolo 1,686]

Would be nice to have some visual, but i still don't feel the need for it like i do in a combat simulator to be honest

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Wow, I hadn't realised AeroFlyFS had damage modelling. I really don't like in X-Plane when you have a crash or land too hard (mostly in helicopters), you end up shooting into space or you get a flat tyre in a helicopter, it's so poorly done that I just switch it off and make everything invincible. Same in FSX

 

Nerd3 did a really funny video a long time ago having fun with the wings popping off. I think he laughed so hard he hurt himself and started choking at one point.  :wink:

 

Honestly I think his reactions are far more indicative about how actual newbies would approach things, how they would react, and what they would try.

 

 

 

Damage modeling doesn't have to be so sophisticated like in a Combat sim.

 

It is presently very well done in il-2 BoS and RoF, not quite that much in DCS, acceptably in il2 CloD, and the best in Aerofly FS among civil sims.

 

In Flight Unlimited 1, 2 and 3, it was also very well done.

 

I think that for a civil sim, something in the line we have now with Aerofly FS is good enough.

 

Agreed.

[WebMaximus 372]

The damage modeling in Aerofly FS looks very nice to me. That is exactly what I would like to see in an upcoming simulator from DTG.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Hi Martin,

 

I am surprised this hasn't come up in this thread but the reason why no crash modeling on FSX is because the aircraft manufacturers asked not to have it. MSFS once had it and got rid of it because they licence Boeing and Cessna etc and Boeing and Cessna do not want to show their products with any kind of damage in a licence product in a flight simulator.

 

I don't think that position will ever change, but you can understand the reason they would not allow it because they are in the business of selling aircraft and Flight Simmers at home showing their products with damage and making videos is very bad for their business. 

 

People can and do add after effects to it to make damage appear but that is not in the original programming. 

[Paraffin 2,197]

I am surprised this hasn't come up in this thread but the reason why no crash modeling on FSX is because the aircraft manufacturers asked not to have it. MSFS once had it and got rid of it because they licence Boeing and Cessna etc and Boeing and Cessna do not want to show their products with any kind of damage in a licence product in a flight simulator.

 

I wonder what the situation is with X-Plane then, since Boeings, Cessnas, and all the rest can show engine damage (black smoke) after a hard landing or crash? At any rate, this may apply only to visual representation. It should be possible to give the pilot a text notice for light damage like blown tire, collapsed strut, or tail strike without showing anything externally.

 

The point is to have some intermediate points of feedback between a perfect landing and a crash, to help improve pilot skill. It doesn't improve pilot skill if every landing is considered "perfect," no matter how hard, until you cross an arbitrary threshold where the sim says you've crashed.

[bonchie 2,305]

Full damage modeling probably won't happen. They've basically said they aren't working on it at all right now, but maybe they'll add a few things.

I agree that simulating hard landings would make sense though. Bent props, broken struts, popped tires. For those that just want to slam into things and see wings fly off, there's about a dozen other simulators that do that.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

 

 

For those that just want to slam into things and see wings fly off, there's about a dozen other simulators that do that.

 

I don't think I saw anyone advocate that at all.

[bonchie 2,305]

I don't think I saw anyone advocate that at all.

 

And?

 

I don't think any civilian sim maker is going to spend time on such an extensive damage model because in real life, if you are doing something bad enough to rip a wing off, you are probably a smoking hole and dead. Combat sims do it because they know such damage models will be used in every session.

 

Modelling of hard landings and prop strikes is worth putting time into as they are possible on every normal landing if you do something wrong. 

[HiFlyer 9,343]

And?

 

I don't think any civilian sim maker is going to spend time on such an extensive damage model because in real life, if you are doing something bad enough to rip a wing off, you are probably a smoking hole and dead. Combat sims do it because they know such damage models will be used in every session.

 

Modelling of hard landings and prop strikes is worth putting time into as they are possible on every normal landing if you do something wrong.

 

Nobody actually asked for an extensive damage model. The posts advocating for damage have so far been about fairly simple models, and I wanted to emphasise that nobody had discussed just wanting to slam into things to see the wings fly off.