Even worse would be animating catastrophic events which I see no need in a GA sim.

So you are saying there is no place for catstrophic engine failure due to incorrect engine management or the wing detachement/structural damage due to exceeding the G-limit during maneuvers in a GA simulation?

 

Imagine suddenly losing the partial control and be able to identify the problem by visually inpsecting the wing and noticing that one of the aileron is missing. 

 

I would argue the simulation is NOT complete without simulating and showing things like that.

 

Option to turn them off should perhaps be in place, but notion that those things are redundant is... absurd.

I would argue the simulation is NOT complete without simulating and showing things like that.

 

I'm with you there. Also many of us are now used to playing videos games where the level of crash detecting if quite realistic.  We then fire up P3D or whatever, then find that our wing or nose has just entered another plane or the terminal building by mistake. Even some basic crash/bump detection in this sort of scenario would be nice, and would add a little real world.

For example

 

https://youtu.be/3pFlyN_5Mhc?t=1

So you are saying there is no place for catstrophic engine failure due to incorrect engine management or the wing detachement/structural damage due to exceeding the G-limit during maneuvers in a GA simulation?

 

Imagine suddenly losing the partial control and be able to identify the problem by visually inpsecting the wing and noticing that one of the aileron is missing. 

I would argue the simulation is NOT complete without simulating and showing things like that.

Option to turn them off should perhaps be in place, but notion that those things are redundant is... absurd.

Thanks for sharing your view on all this Lena and especially interesting when I see in your signature you're actually working within the aviation industry IRL.

I am on the side I don't need to see crash modeling in a General Aviation simulator but if others want to see it that is fine with me. I would just turn it off and focus on flying. 

 

I think the point some people are (sensibly) trying to make, is that damage modelling would make people concentrate even more on the flying. The success of some add-ons, for example A2A, that have the option of punishing poor aircraft handling,would seem to indicate that this is popular feature.

 

Personally, when I'm simming, I want to think about the things real pilots think about, as near as possible. I'm pretty sure that real-world pilots tend to be careful of the aircraft, and aware of the consequences of carelessness. 

 

I'm with you there. Also many of us are now used to playing videos games where the level of crash detecting if quite realistic.  We then fire up P3D or whatever, then find that our wing or nose has just entered another plane or the terminal building by mistake. Even some basic crash/bump detection in this sort of scenario would be nice, and would add a little real world.

 

 

 

While I'm in agreement, be careful what you wish for. The sim has to support it properly, too. For example, I had crash detection turned on until the day I crashed while taxiing at one Orbx airport. My wingtip "hit" a tree many metres away...  :mad:

I would also hazard that FSX and our other sims include many many (many!) things that add nothing to a pilot's training, including birds, moving cars, detailed grass and trees that drop leaves, more realistic ocean coloring, wing flex and a host of other stuff not part of any syllabus, that over the course of years have never raised anything remotely close to such controversy.

 

And I agree, these things add little to pilot's training hence you don't see them in any serious simulator.

 

The thing is, FSX was never designed as a "serious" (commercial level) simulator. It came from Microsoft Game Studios for ages 14 and older, and was always positioned as a purely entertainment product not to be used for serious training except perhaps as an aid. Similarly, DTGs offering is not intended as a substitute for real pilot training.

 

The conceit of FSX as a "real" simulator capable of commercial simulation level training is rarely seen to be supported by fact:

 

https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4492/

 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110529183605AAC1wQv

 

Microsoft itself never claimed that, and in fact cast the broadest possible net for potential users, with a wide variety of tastes, which I expect DTG will do as well if it wants to create something other than a niche product.

 

Hi Captains!


Well, a few days ago I was talking with a flying-friend about simple crashes or mishaps in MSFS/P3D. He asked me if it was possible to simulate a belly landing - we saw that video of a navajo(?) that made a touch-and-go with wheels up.

I answered him dont knowing that possibility. So I searched the web and avsim foruns looking for these and Boom! - I found this interesting early topic discussing "Crash Modelling" - coincidences... :smile:

I remembered years ago in FS9 to do a landing with gear up and the airplane slided down the runway. Well, a litle sunk in the runway but came to a stop. I think it was the C210 from Carenado and crash detection was off, as it shoud be allways.

So I tried the same in FSX with the same model from carenado, but nop!, it touched the runway and stayed bouncing indefinitely to the air about a meter. Then I searched again and found that would be possible wih mods in the contact points, for the model to simulate a belly landing. But I loose the interest.

That would be interesting if it was possible in future flight simulators platforms, to train emergency procedures for a gear up landing, for example.

Would also be interesting to see some structural deformations whit sloppy or hard touch-downs, above a certain vertical speed.

Beyond these simple crashes, I think it is a litle far-fetched, because we dont want to crash in our virtual or real flights. If I crash in the simulator, because I want to deal with an intended engine failure or so, and have to execute a forced landing in a field or highway... well, I pull the imagination to 'what if'.... but, that's just me... :smile:

P.S.- by the way, nice videos JCOMM! Grande abraço! :wink:

Best regards from portugal B)

 

 

 

 

The thing is, FSX was never designed as a "serious" (commercial level) simulator. It came from Microsoft Game Studios for ages 14 and older, and was always positioned as a purely entertainment product not to be used for serious training except perhaps as an aid. Similarly, DTGs offering is not intended as a substitute for real pilot training.

 

 

 

 

 

After all, do you remember the commercial they made on FSX?

 

Hi Captains!

 

 

Well, a few days ago I was talking with a flying-friend about simple crashes or mishaps in MSFS/P3D. He asked me if it was possible to simulate a belly landing - we saw that video of a navajo(?) that made a touch-and-go with wheels up.

 

I answered him dont knowing that possibility. So I searched the web and avsim foruns looking for these and Boom! - I found this interesting early topic discussing "Crash Modelling" - coincidences... :smile:

 

I remembered years ago in FS9 to do a landing with gear up and the airplane slided down the runway. Well, a litle sunk in the runway but came to a stop. I think it was the C210 from Carenado and crash detection was off, as it shoud be allways.

 

So I tried the same in FSX with the same model from carenado, but nop!, it touched the runway and stayed bouncing indefinitely to the air about a meter. Then I searched again and found that would be possible wih mods in the contact points, for the model to simulate a belly landing. But I loose the interest.

 

That would be interesting if it was possible in future flight simulators platforms, to train emergency procedures for a gear up landing, for example.

 

Would also be interesting to see some structural deformations whit sloppy or hard touch-downs, above a certain vertical speed.

 

Beyond these simple crashes, I think it is a litle far-fetched, because we dont want to crash in our virtual or real flights. If I crash in the simulator, because I want to deal with an intended engine failure or so, and have to execute a forced landing in a field or highway... well, I pull the imagination to 'what if'.... but, that's just me... :smile:

 

P.S.- by the way, nice videos JCOMM! Grande abraço! :wink:

 

Best regards from portugal B)

 

Ganda Pedro meu!!!!!!

Abraço!  Vamos ver se o DTG mexe com a pasmaceira em que vivemos no mundo dos simuladores de voo! 

 

Sorry guys - portuguese :-)

I had crash detection turned on until the day I crashed while taxiing at one Orbx airport. My wingtip "hit" a tree many metres away.

 

Ouch!  and the flight scenario ended there and then I suppose?  So what we need is not only proper collision detection but for flight scenarios to carry on after a bump or a crash. 

 

Imagine if other simulator games, such as Truck Simulator, were designed the same way as MSFS?.

 

FIY. No crash test dummies were hurt making this video :smile:

 

https://youtu.be/8BJ8pLKMTeM?t=59

Well, a few days ago I was talking with a flying-friend about simple crashes or mishaps in MSFS/P3D. He asked me if it was possible to simulate a belly landing - we saw that video of a navajo(?) that made a touch-and-go with wheels up.

 

I answered him dont knowing that possibility. So I searched the web and avsim foruns looking for these and Boom! - I found this interesting early topic discussing "Crash Modelling" - coincidences... :smile:

 

I remembered years ago in FS9 to do a landing with gear up and the airplane slided down the runway. Well, a litle sunk in the runway but came to a stop. I think it was the C210 from Carenado and crash detection was off, as it shoud be allways.

 

So I tried the same in FSX with the same model from carenado, but nop!, it touched the runway and stayed bouncing indefinitely to the air about a meter. Then I searched again and found that would be possible wih mods in the contact points, for the model to simulate a belly landing. But I loose the interest.

 

It's possible to do a belly landing in X-Plane. I was curious so I just tried it. The first attempt failed, using the LES DC-3 because right after contact with the runway the gear automatically extended! That was weird, but I think it's just that one aircraft model. Then I tried it in a Carenado Bonanza F33 and it worked fine. On contact with the runway, the plane "stuck" and didn't bounce, just slid in a fairly straight line (with some rudder action to help keep it aimed straight ahead). When it came to rest, the engine/propeller were stopped, and the engine was smoking. 

 

Here's what it looked like (image below). Ground contact was roughly at the tire marks past the threshold in the distance, so you can see how far it slid. Probably not quite far enough for realism? I dunno. But I liked the way it seemed affected by gravity and didn't just bounce.

 

http://www.ptjams.com/mb/img/planes/Car_Bonanza_Belly_Landing.jpg

 

X-Plane includes a number of failure models in addition to this one, including: 

 

Blown tires on hard landing (not sure this is still in the sim?)

Bird strikes

Runway obstruction (deer)

Engine smoke on hard landings/crashes

Hazardous runway surface (settings for wet or icy runways)

In-flight icing on airframe

In-flight control surface damage from over-G, etc.

 

And maybe some others I've forgotten. It's possible X-Plane goes a bit further because it's basically a pet project of private GA pilot Austin Meyer, so it includes things he cares about and has to deal with, like bird strikes (and those silly deer). It's not a sim that's designed by corporate committee, so maybe there's a bit more flexibility with what can be done with damage modeling. 

 

It's not perfect by a long shot. There is still too much slack between "perfect landing" and "crash" that allows sloppy landings with no feedback to the pilot. Tail strikes aren't modeled on long fuselage aircraft. Water ditching isn't realistic (there is improvement needed for the hydro model in general, for controlled takeoff/landing in amphibious models). But I'm glad it goes at least this far.

What you guys are talking about can already be done and the visuals are easily done with overlaying textures. Example of that is the way PMDG has icing on its windshield on the J41 or how in Farm Simulator when you drive around the fields dirt appears on the model and you can clean it off with a power washer. All that can be done in FSX too by applying overlaying textures to the model that can appear and disappear to create some visual effects.

 

Where you would draw the line is in the 3D Modeling where things like wings break off or anything catastrophic...etc. I would draw the line at some point as to be honest I don't need to see some things. When I was in flight school one of our planes crashed killing an instructor and student so no I don't want to see a Cessna crashed in a field. When I lived in Nova Scotia they pulled Swiss Air Flight 111 out of the ocean and stored it at the Air Force Base across the lake from where I lived so for years the wreckage was visible from my front porch, so no I don't want to see a airliner breaking apart in the ocean. When MK1602 crashed at Halifax Airport my partners cousin was on board so no I don't want to see a 747 breaking apart crashing during takeoff.......these sort of events I consider catastrophic and they have no place in the sim.

 

Anything involving texture modifications I would consider superficial and I agree would add some realism to the sim but you have to draw a line at some point

 

So you are saying there is no place for catstrophic engine failure due to incorrect engine management or the wing detachement/structural damage due to exceeding the G-limit during maneuvers in a GA simulation?

 

Amazing how when you go for a beer with a few mates and tell stories sometimes their is that one person that doesn't follow or is too literal and doesn't get it when the majority just get it and it goes without saying....I am sorry I didn't realize you were that person...No where was I talking about engines so I don't no were you are getting this from. I am not going to over explain things on here because you can't determine I was not talking about engines....I am just saying

 

I think things like wings breaking off are not welcome in the sim for obvious reasons. If it comes to that a message that says structural failure is how a session ends....no need to animate a catastrophe

Anything involving texture modifications I would consider superficial and I agree would add some realism to the sim but you have to draw a line at some point

 

But who decides at what point that line is drawn? Who gets to decide for everyone, and by what authority?

 

I think things like wings breaking off are not welcome in the sim for obvious reasons. If it come to that a message that says structural failure is how a session ends....no need to animate a catastrophe

 

No need for some people. It's been suggested repeatedly that a simple switch should be able to turn damage modeling on or off, a reasonable seeming compromise solution that preserves free choice in the privacy of one's home. Yet it seems that's not sufficient. For some reason there seems to be a feeling that this decision should not be a personal one, but that one standard (chosen by who, I wonder?) should be enforced on everyone. Again I would ask as I did above: By what right and what Authority?

 

And going by Paraffins post listing X-planes damage modes, when is that authority going to censor X-plane, and why has it not been a problem before now?

When you add any kind of crash animations to the sim then people will go so far as fly airplanes into buildings and create YouTube video's out of that. I would rather none of it to be honest as crash animations are not good for this hobby. 

 

I'd rather have Youtube ban all kinds of flight sim videos because every time I want to look at a video containing aircraft, I'll have to crawl through 100s of terrible flight sim videos to find it... Your argument is probably the best one against crash modelling - it would increase the number of bad youtube videos  

 

DTG should just make the feature a §100 DLC. Then those who really "need" it could get their kicks. 

 

On a serious note, this feature doesn't even make my Top 100 list... But that's just me. 

What you guys are talking about can already be done and the visuals are easily done with overlaying textures. Example of that is the way PMDG has icing on its windshield on the J41

 

Is that icing just a visual effect, or does it affect the flight model? I don't fly FSX so I don't know how it models icing. 

 

In X-Plane at least, icing is real. It affects the flight model, and you'll soon drop like a brick if you don't get out of it. It needs improvement, because it comes on a little too quickly. Also, a limitation in X-Plane's current weather model means it's almost impossible to divert and fly out of the initiating conditions. But again, at least it's there in the flight model. It's not enough just to show a texture overlay.

 

Where you would draw the line is in the 3D Modeling where things like wings break off or anything catastrophic...etc. I would draw the line at some point as to be honest I don't need to see some things. When I was in flight school one of our planes crashed killing an instructor and student so no I don't want to see a Cessna crashed in a field.

 

 

Once again, nobody is asking for gruesome crash images. What we're asking for is feedback so we can fly better. It's about exploring the limits of the flight envelope so we can understand and practice how to deal with emergencies. 

 

I mentioned this before, but EFTO emergencies are a fascinating topic to me. I like to practice engine-outs right after takeoff and see whether straight-in or return-to-field is a better result. And not just single engine. EFTO in a twin can be hairy if the donk that blows is the critical engine and you don't correct soon enough. I would like to know if I had a better chance walking away from EFTO scenario A vs. scenario B, and that doesn't require gruesome crash imagery. It does require fairly realistic ground contact modeling and not bouncing into the sky. It could be something as simple as showing the plane at rest upside-down (and otherwise undamaged) as a not-good result vs. rightside-up for a controlled (and presumably survivable) rash landing.

 

I don't take any of this lightly, by the way. As I mentioned before, in real life I've survived a ditching at sea in a small plane. I've had a hired pilot crash and die in a small plane right after dropping me off at a landing strip on his way home. But the fact that stuff like this happens, doesn't mean we shouldn't have all the tools we need to practice how to avoid it in a simulator, including the necessary failure conditions as feedback.

DTG should just make the feature a §100 DLC. Then those who really "need" it could get their kicks.

 

So now we add punishment for choosing differently? Unfortunately this has actually been seriously suggested previously, with one person even going so far as to suggest that if you crash your plane, it should be deleted. An interesting feature...... for the 3 or 4 people who would actually buy such a thing.