Crash Modelling......

[JLSeagull 191]

Is this a Flight Sim that I see before me.... or a 9/11 Train Wreck Armageddon Zombie Fight Fest?   Good grief Peeps! Get Real!! Did the Wright Brothers factor in the 'Stuff it into the Ground and DIE scenario' when they were building their Dream?  If you want to experience a virtual death then go and play with the kiddies on Steam!

 

The clue is in the Title:  FLIGHT!  If you bounce off the ground the first time around then YOU got it wrong..... but at least the Sim is forgiving enough to realise that you are NOT Tom Cruise and allows you the benefit of being able to do a virtual go-around - and do it again properly!

 

Unreal!

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

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.

 

 

When you look on your box of FSX it has a Boeing 'Officially Licenced Product' logo on it. Part of that licencing was that any Boeing products do not show damage to the products. FS2004 box has a Cessna logo on it as well.

 

X-Plane does not have a licencing deal, That is the reason why you won't see a Boeing or Cessna logo on X-Plane

[WebMaximus 372]

Is this a Flight Sim that I see before me.... or a 9/11 Train Wreck Armageddon Zombie Fight Fest? Good grief Peeps! Get Real!! Did the Wright Brothers factor in the 'Stuff it into the Ground and DIE scenario' when they were building their Dream? If you want to experience a virtual death then go and play with the kiddies on Steam!

 

The clue is in the Title: FLIGHT! If you bounce off the ground the first time around then YOU got it wrong..... but at least the Sim is forgiving enough to realise that you are NOT Tom Cruise and allows you the benefit of being able to do a virtual go-around - and do it again properly!

 

Unreal!

You mean it's unreal bouncing off the ground if you perform a bad landing...? Yeah, I tend to agree.

 

What I also wish was unreal is how people in these forums manage to make certain topics derail in the way this one has. I was one of the first I believe who asked if there will be any kind of damage modeling. Not because I plan to slam into things by purpose but because I always strive for realism and the kind of damage modeling I was hoping for was thing like seeing how your gear collapsed after a hard landing for example. Does that make me a child with a wish for destruction?!

 

I asked myself many times over the past 10+ years I've been a member of this kindergarten for adults how I find the strengths going on having these kind of discussions and I guess it's time I ask myself the same question once again...sigh...

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Is this a Flight Sim that I see before me.... or a 9/11 Train Wreck Armageddon Zombie Fight Fest?   Good grief Peeps! Get Real!! Did the Wright Brothers factor in the 'Stuff it into the Ground and DIE scenario' when they were building their Dream?  If you want to experience a virtual death then go and play with the kiddies on Steam!

 

The clue is in the Title:  FLIGHT!  If you bounce off the ground the first time round then YOU got it wrong..... but at least the Sim is forgiving enough to realise that you are NOT Tom Cruise and allows you the benefit of being able do a virtual go-around - and do it again properly!

 

Unreal!

Yes its a flight sim, yet there are birds, so is it a bird sim? There are dolphins, so is it a dolphin sim? Planes can be damaged; that's as much a facet of aviation as engine failures and electrical problems. To me, demanding near perfect verisimilitude in the simulation experience, yet deliberately rejecting the depiction, even if only just symbolically of real life consequences, for reasons usually surrounded by lots of exclamation points is illogical.

[Paraffin 2,197]

Is this a Flight Sim that I see before me.... or a 9/11 Train Wreck Armageddon Zombie Fight Fest?   Good grief Peeps! Get Real!! Did the Wright Brothers factor in the 'Stuff it into the Ground and DIE scenario' when they were building their Dream?  If you want to experience a virtual death then go and play with the kiddies on Steam!

 

Once again, it's not about simulating virtual death, but simulating real-world conditions that are an everyday part of "getting it right" in aviation.

 

If every landing is considered perfect right up to some arbitrary threshold where the sim says "you've crashed," then sim pilots will be doing sloppy landings that will blow tires or cause tail strikes in real life. 

 

I would even go further with crash modeling, although I see that this isn't popular with some here. Consider the choices you have to make, if you have an engine failure in a single-engine plane soon after rotation. This is something every real-world pilot is supposed to be thinking about and planning for on every take-off, with consideration for local terrain and obstacles. There is even some controversy about whether one should never try to turn back to the airport (and risk stalling in a turn) vs. plowing straight ahead into whatever landing area you have in front.

 

In a sim with more detailed crash modeling, it would be possible to try different scenarios and see which are more survivable. Or doesn't anyone here practice emergency EFTO landings?

 

Similarly, it would be nice if modern flight sims could better simulate a water ditching, which requires different techniques depending on fixed vs. retractable gear, underslung engines, and so on. Hasn't anyone here tried doing a "Scully" landing in a tubeliner? I survived a water ditching many years ago in real life, in a DeHavilland Otter. I've been able to replicate the accident right up to the glide before hitting the water, but then the sim goes haywire on contact because it's not designed to simulate the hydrodymamics of water contact on non-pontoon or hull surfaces. 

 

In summary, it's not about "9/11 Train Wreck Armageddon Zombie Flight Fest." It's about simulating real-world emergencies that are part of real-world aviation, so we can learn to be better sim pilots. 

[WebMaximus 372]

Once again, it's not about simulating virtual death, but simulating real-world conditions that are an everyday part of "getting it right" in aviation.

 

If every landing is considered perfect right up to some arbitrary threshold where the sim says "you've crashed," then sim pilots will be doing sloppy landings that will blow tires or cause tail strikes in real life.

 

I would even go further with crash modeling, although I see that this isn't popular with some here. Consider the choices you have to make, if you have an engine failure in a single-engine plane soon after rotation. This is something every real-world pilot is supposed to be thinking about and planning for on every take-off, with consideration for local terrain and obstacles. There is even some controversy about whether one should never try to turn back to the airport (and risk stalling in a turn) vs. plowing straight ahead into whatever landing area you have in front.

 

In a sim with more detailed crash modeling, it would be possible to try different scenarios and see which are more survivable. Or doesn't anyone here practice emergency EFTO landings?

 

Similarly, it would be nice if modern flight sims could better simulate a water ditching, which requires different techniques depending on fixed vs. retractable gear, underslung engines, and so on. Hasn't anyone here tried doing a "Scully" landing in a tubeliner? I survived a water ditching many years ago in real life, in a DeHavilland Otter. I've been able to replicate the accident right up to the glide before hitting the water, but then the sim goes haywire on contact because it's not designed to simulate the hydrodymamics of water contact on non-pontoon or hull surfaces.

 

In summary, it's not about "9/11 Train Wreck Armageddon Zombie Flight Fest." It's about simulating real-world emergencies that are part of real-world aviation, so we can learn to be better sim pilots.

THANK YOU!!

 

I really needed to read a post like this one for my mental health.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

THANK YOU!!

 

I really needed to read a post like this one for my mental health.

 

LOL!

[bonchie 2,305]

 

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.

 

You kind of did in your very first response to the person saying he'd hope no one is wanting a crash simulator.

 

But if you don't think an extensive, wings ripping off damage model is needed, then we agree.

 

Much better to put time into simulating systems failures, engine damage, and common landing damage. That kind of stuff would be widely used by everyone and in play every flight. 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

It actually began this way:
 

An earlier reply indicated there would be no visible damage from things like scraping a wing on a crosswind landing. However, visuals, aside, what are the plans for giving the pilot feedback about damage from hard landings in both sims, especially Flight School?

I assume there must be some way to let the student know that a landing was too hard, including the range from blown tire to full crash? Or will the plane be indestructible, and you'll just get a tongue-lashing from the instructor? :smile:

This is one of my peeves about X-Plane; the way the damage modeling for hard landings isn't very granular. It tends to be all or nothing -- too forgiving or a full crash. There is a 3rd party plugin that shows vertical speed and G force at landing, so you can rate yourself. But it seems to me that this should be something that's part of the core simulation. Especially for a training sim.

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.

Things then pretty much went downhill from there. To be clear, I have nothing against wings falling off if that's a real consequence, and don't agree that that necessarily means "Arcade" "Crash Simulator" or any other term that's been used. I also don't accept the "resource" argument because every time I've seen that concern expressed its been regarding something that the person replying personally didn't care for, which apparently made anyone who felt differently a "Gamer" etc.

This in my mind is a symptom of the small tent flight simulation has become, where only a certain list of sanctioned behaviors equals "true" simulation. The boundaries seem defined almost completely by standards set long ago by Microsoft, which have somehow almost become law..

Once upon a time damage modeling was as uncontroversial as rain, and we have seen that even now, other sims (like Aerofly) have few problems with it.

[Murmur 3,941]

Condor Soaring is a "serious" flight simulator (a lot of its users are real life glider pilots) and it has a basic damage model as well (wings ripping off when over-g'ing or overspeeding).

[RichLP 32]

Planes never crash in the pretend airline pilot world...

[tf51d 284]

FS never had accurate damage modelling for a reason, If they wanted to model real world aircraft or airlines, they had to dumb down the damage modeling. Boeing or Airbus doesn't want to see a representation of their aircraft, being destroyed, or blown up, even in a sim. Especially after 9/11. Also remember PMDG needs Boeing's license to publish their model as other developers may need other manufacturers license. If DTG goes ahead and adds damage modeling that people here seem to want, These developers may not be able to offer their products on DFS. I don't think anyone here wants that, so I'm ok with what we have now in this regard. Also it's a little late in the game to be requesting new features, the time for that was last year, when DTG had a "What do you want to see in a new flightsim" thread on their FSXSE forum on Steam.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

OMG, who the heck made that "Flight Unlimited 2 Crashing" video? The accompanying "music" makes me want to rip my ears off :mad:

[jcomm 5,929]

OMG OMG!!!! Indeed Hiflyer - that was truly GREAT and at the same time Nostalgic to watch - How I loved that game and wanted it to  be a success, just as I did with MS FLIGHT, and somehow, don't know why because I have already grown up in age and simmerness, expect of DTG...

 

As an UNINSTALLER ( a tribe you know... ) i uninstalled ALL of my flight simulation games, and those are actually the only games I have ever used in a PC... I eagerly wait for DTG Flight School...

 

Yesteraday, talking tio a great friend pilot and RC enthusiast who has long been trying to pull me from being seated in front of a PC when not flying ( less than I would like these days a rw glider ) and bring me to the thrill of RC gliders again ( did that some 25 yrs ago... ), but I was telling him that a new flight simulator was about to become available, and that it would start with a Flight School title...

 

Many pilots flying ULM here in Portugal have died in the last years, IMO mostly because most of them start flying without even knowing what flying really is about. Not knowing the true principles of flight, sometimes even not having the slightest sound idea of what stalling is, even less entering a spin, and even less a spin due to skidding during the base to final turn, near the ground.... Parasite drag ?  Critical AoA ? Flying in cold and / or moist air ? What's the bug ?

 

A dream I always had is that of having a simulator that includes realistic representation of some really very basic aspects of flying an aircraft, some of them poorly represented in the sims I have used but soooooo important IRL that I can't but classify those as what they really are - games... more or less arcade games....

 

Flight Unlimited was special, because being yet another flight simulation game, effects like those of icing, adverse weather that should be avoided, flying in the border of controlled flight, and even basic ATC for VFR were all extraordinarily represented.

 

I am really up to get my virtual pilot license in DTG's Flight School, even if I never touched any missions other than the Red Bull Air Races in Acceleration....

 

I am placing big expectations, but not being fool to believe it'll be perfect from the start. I find the approach being followed by DTG very wise - small but precise steps are fundamental in a project that will have to bring new life and hope to the civil flight simulation community!

[HiFlyer 9,359]

FS never had accurate damage modelling for a reason, If they wanted to model real world aircraft or airlines, they had to dumb down the damage modeling. Boeing or Airbus doesn't want to see a representation of their aircraft, being destroyed, or blown up, even in a sim. Especially after 9/11.

 

I've actually always found that interesting, about manufacturers objections. Its very inconsistent and the reasoning doesn't seem to stand up very well to scrutiny. There are any number of movies, seen by millions, depicting crashes in recognizable aircraft done with the full knowledge of manufacturers and in much more graphic detail than anything I think anyone here has advocated in their worst nightmares. This is not to mention documentaries, reenactments and a host of other depictions, which all seem to be acceptable.

 

Yet mention it in simulation which by accepted definition (here at least) should include every aspect of flight down just to about the number of rivets on a plane's nose and the colors of the bathroom fixtures, and chaos ensues. I keep seeing this as a visceral/emotional rather than a truly logical reaction.

 

Be that as it may, its a fact that some (but not all!) aircraft manufacturers have objections. The way that has been addressed in the past has been simply to have damage modeling only on those planes that allow it. 

 

OMG, who the heck made that "Flight Unlimited 2 Crashing" video? The accompanying "music" makes me want to rip my ears off :mad:

 

Obnoxious, isn't it?  :Big Grin:

 

Also it's a little late in the game to be requesting new features, the time for that was last year, when DTG had a "What do you want to see in a new flightsim" thread on their FSXSE forum on Steam.

 

Actually damage modelling was requested repeatedly in that thread, and also in another thread started here at about the same time.