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.

 

Agree. Actually for me, the problem with MSFS is not even the lack of damage per se, but the lack of (or very limited) physics interaction of aircraft with the ground or water. It's either a normal landing or a "crash" message. And if you disable crash detection, the aircraft simply teleports a few feet higher (even more immersion killing).

 

Having a better physics interaction between aircraft and ground/water (even without damage modeling as a default so that aircraft manufacturers could not object) would first of all make botched landings, ditchings, etc. more immersive. And it would probably also make it easier for 3rd parties to add damage modeling to their products, once the physics and collision detection are in place.

 

I understand that a lot of self proclaimed "serious" simmers see this as uncompletely unnecessary, but let's remember that, apart all the military flight sims that must have it, even most of the other past and present civil flight simulators (AeroflyFS, X-Plane, Condor Soaring, Flight Unlimites, etc.) had some sort of damage modeling and, equally important, a better interaction between aircraft and the ground.

Agree. Actually for me, the problem with MSFS is not even the lack of damage per se, but the lack of (or very limited) physics interaction of aircraft with the ground or water. It's either a normal landing or a "crash" message. And if you disable crash detection, the aircraft simply teleports a few feet higher (even more immersion killing).

 

Having a better physics interaction between aircraft and ground/water (even without damage modeling as a default so that aircraft manufacturers could not object) would first of all make botched landings, ditchings, etc. more immersive. And it would probably also make it easier for 3rd parties to add damage modeling to their products, once the physics and collision detection are in place.

 

I understand that a lot of self proclaimed "serious" simmers see this as uncompletely unnecessary, but let's remember that, apart all the military flight sims that must have it, even most of the other past and present civil flight simulators (AeroflyFS, X-Plane, Condor Soaring, Flight Unlimites, etc.) had some sort of damage modeling and, equally important, a better interaction between aircraft and the ground.

 

And not only better interaction with the ground upon making contact with it, when you land, but even more when you are rolling for take off or rolling out after touchdown. Ground handling in FSX/Prepar3D is horrible. After all these years it still feels like flying on the ground, especially with a crosswind. Ground physics should be improved a lot!

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.

 

...and how many of airline disaster movies use real airline names, unless it's about  a historical event?

 

 

 

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

 

Then continuing to harp on it, when DTG clearly would know about the request, is sort of like beating  a dead horse.

Wow. Amazing how a simple request for something that would make the sim more realistic can become such a angry discussion. I am all in for ALL possible kinds of damage: not because I want to damage my plane or anything else but simply because I want to come as close to reality in my sim as possible. The fun thing is I absolutely hate damage. Last week I forgot to raise my flaps after take off in my Legacy and the sudden bang I heard and the constant noise of broken flaps I got the rest of my flight and the anxiety if I would land well (I did) totally spoiled my flight... but hey, that was my own stupid fault and so I deserved it. I won't forget to raise the flaps after take off anytime soon. I cannot imagine why anyone who is into simming (whatever that may be) doesn't want realism. What else are you simming for if you don't want realism? The ones who should go play with the kiddies on Steam are those who do NOT want realism. A sim without realism isn't a sim. I run sims for the realism, not for the lack of it. Like it or not but when you fly a plane and something goes wrong, something should actually go wrong. Not because it's fun but because that's how it is in real life.

 

Odd discussion...

The ones who should go play with the kiddies on Steam are those who do NOT want realism. 

 

Odd discussion...

 

Lets not take this discussion down the personal attack road Jeroen and suggest that people are adolescent because they dont believe in detailed destruction of aircraft. One of the biggest reasons I oppose it for example, is because it can be grossly abused, such as in that Flight Unlimited video a few pages back, and just like any violent game, it is desensitizing to air tragedies.

 

I have held my license for about a decade now and I come to know a hand full of pilots who have lost their lives behind the yoke. Two had an air to air collision, one was my former CFI who stalled into a house, one a former combat aviator who accidentally flew into a large building, and one who got their plane flipped on takeoff due to wake. Not a single one of them was recoverable or could have been avoided if damage modeling was in their simulator and they trained for these collisions. 

 

I largely dont see any practical need for damage modeling and if you want it for sheer realism, then you should also recognize the resources and complexity of material based destruction and the fact that it would take significant time to create a complex damage model in FSX, which was never designed for it. I for one would much rather have those development cycles spent on the flying realism, not the crashing realism. 

...and how many of airline disaster movies use real airline names, unless it's about  a historical event?

 

You mean like the real names in FSX, like Soar and Pacifica airways? 

 

Then continuing to harp on it, when DTG clearly would know about the request, is sort of like beating  a dead horse.

 

You're absolutely right! But I would just point out that if multiple requests is "harping" then are the multiple requests for better atc and all the other more traditional requests that have been made many more times than damage ever has, also "harping"? 

 

Interesting how we decide to see things.

Lets not take this discussion down the personal attack road Jeroen and suggest that people are adolescent because they dont believe in detailed destruction of aircraft.

I wish this concern had been evident when others who liked the idea of damage were being conflated with arcade gamers and etc.

What I find ironic is that, statistically speaking, "serious" simmers should be the first in line requesting damage modeling.

 

Infact, if we look at the NTSB stats for 2015, we have:

 

.) 763 events during the standing/taxi/takeoff/landing phase (most of them being landing gear failures or collapses, ground collisions, tail/wing/propeller strikes, runway excursions, etc.)

 

.) 466 events during the climb/cruise/maneuvering/descent/approach/go-around phase (most of them being engine failures, systems failures, loss of control, CFIT, etc.)

 

So the most probable event actually involves the aircraft being damaged on the ground.

I largely dont see any practical need for damage modeling and if you want it for sheer realism, then you should also recognize the resources and complexity of material based destruction and the fact that it would take significant time to create a complex damage model in FSX, which was never designed for it. I for one would much rather have those development cycles spent on the flying realism, not the crashing realism. 

 

And others disagree. The whole red herring about resources is for some reason noticeably absent when people are calling for deeper and deeper simulation of obscure systems and other things that have made multiple years of development by 3rd parties necessary (at great expense for items that are then sold at bargain basement prices) and have made almost mandatory many things similarly superfluous to the simulation but are expected. Like wing flex.

 

 

You're absolutely right! But I would just point out that if multiple requests is "harping" then are the multiple requests for better atc and all the other more traditional requests that have been made many more times than damage ever has been also "harping"?

 

Absolutely at this stage of development, whatever features DTG implemented has most likely already been decided on, and won't change now if they want to keep on their schedule.

Absolutely at this stage of development, whatever features DTG implemented has most likely already been decided on, and won't change now if they want to keep on their schedule.

 

Then by that logic absolutely all requests should be stopped immediately......... Yet somehow I don't think that will happen. Nor do I think the people making those requests will consider themselves to be harping just because the request might have been made previously.

 

I feel that in a normal conversation, this would be perceived as people simply adding their additional support for an idea. However here, as J van E pointed out, emotions seem to get involved, and off we go!

Lets not take this discussion down the personal attack road Jeroen and suggest that people are adolescent because they dont believe in detailed destruction of aircraft. One of the biggest reasons I oppose it for example, is because it can be grossly abused, such as in that Flight Unlimited video a few pages back, and just like any violent game, it is desensitizing to air tragedies.

 

I have held my license for about a decade now and I come to know a hand full of pilots who have lost their lives behind the yoke. Two had an air to air collision, one was my former CFI who stalled into a house, one a former combat aviator who accidentally flew into a large building, and one who got their plane flipped on takeoff due to wake. Not a single one of them was recoverable or could have been avoided if damage modeling was in their simulator and they trained for these collisions.

 

I largely dont see any practical need for damage modeling and if you want it for sheer realism, then you should also recognize the resources and complexity of material based destruction and the fact that it would take significant time to create a complex damage model in FSX, which was never designed for it. I for one would much rather have those development cycles spent on the flying realism, not the crashing realism.

 

My Steam remark obviously was a reaction to a previously made post and not something I would have said without that one. It is not a statement on its own.

 

And if you oppose of everything that can be abused, well... what can NOT be abused? Even the Bible can be abused. If possible abuse is the limit, nothing in this world can be allowed to exist.

 

And OBVIOUSLY I don't want damage so I can get into collisions and kill someone. I want damage so I am forced to use my plane as good as possible and as close as possible to real life use. That's all. I ONLY want damage so I can AVOID it.

 

I understand why some don't want damage but in order to actually simulate some things you simply need damage. An F1 sim wouldn't be a sim without damage, even if that damage can be abused to 'kill' an opponent with a terrible accident. Without damage an F1 sim isn't a sim but an arcade game. The same goes for flying sims. You simply need damage in order to simulate even very regular use.

 

Saying that people who want a full experience should play with the kiddies on Steam is nonsense. Limiting everything so no harm can be done and everything will be 'perfect', now that is something you'd normally do for kids. Again, I am not attacking anyone, this simply as a fact.

Without damage an F1 sim isn't a sim but an arcade game. The same goes for flying sims.

It is exactly the opposite, with the damage it is an arcade game (at least for flight-sim) . None of the commercial simulator costing millions have any damage modelling. FAA has no problem certifying those simulators for full pilot training. Same goes for other less costly sims like RedBird, etc.

 

 

You simply need damage in order to simulate even very regular use.

Absurd.

Hasn't this thread run its course yet after the crash modeling debate?

 

What else is there to say? Some have explained why it won't happen, so why keep debating it when it's most likely not going to happen in the way some wish it to.

I agree - we're no longer discussing DTG and this one is getting a little testy.

 

If one wants to continue a discussion on crash modeling - please open a new topic.

 

This one is done.

 

Vic

 

Edit:  Retitled and reopened

I guess their are two types of people, those who like to build a Revell Model Aircraft and display it in all its wonder, and those who like to build a Revell Model Aircraft and take it outside and blow it up with Cherry Bombs.