I wonder why those who are so sensitive in seeing some pixels depicting a damaged virtual aircraft would not let others do differently. You could just switch damages off so everyone's happy.

 

I also don't see those same people objecting when, every once in a while, screenshots of military ops, ground attacks, bombings, etc. are posted in the screenshot forum.

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

 

 

I would say the Aircraft Manufacturer. This is the reason why we have Boeing's and Cessna's in our Flight Sims and Grand Theft Auto does not. Their is a limit to what you can and cannot do with someone else's products. Their lawyers will tell you what you cannot do.

 

 

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. 

 

 

It is visual only and does not effect the 3D Model. It is a transparent layer that can be set to 0% all the way up to 100% so you just adjust the intensity up or down according to the conditions.

 

This effect could be used in all kinds of methods like dirt or scuff marks etc

So now we add punishment for choosing differently? 

 

I've got 427 GB of addons on my hard drive, so punishing those who crave something different has been pretty common practice for almost two decades now...

 

I'm happy to report though that I'm a recovering addict who rarely buy addons anymore, so my only demand for a new sim would be that there is a free SDK for everyone to use and make mods. Without freeware I wont be paying a dime for any new simulator. 

I would say the Aircraft Manufacturer. This is the reason why we have Boeing's and Cessna's in our Flight Sims and Grand Theft Auto does not. Their is a limit to what you can and cannot do with someone else's products. Their lawyers will tell you what you cannot do.

 

I just did an intentional belly landing of a Beechcraft plane to show how it works in X-Plane (see image link above). The final image shows the plane smoking on the runway. Are the Beech lawyers going to come pounding on my door now, or stop Carenado from selling that model?

:smile:

 

I do understand that something like this might prevent a model being sold as an "official Boeing" product, but sims like X-Plane manage to sell large manufacturer models without that sticker. It doesn't seem to have prevented X-Plane's pro version from being used as a licensed FAA simulator either.

 

It is visual only and does not effect the 3D Model. It is a transparent layer that can be set to 0% all the way up to 100% so you just adjust the intensity up or down according to the conditions.

 

This effect could be used in all kinds of methods like dirt or scuff marks etc

 

What is the point of showing in-flight icing as a purely visual effect?

 

Have you ever read "Fate is the Hunter?" There's a great chapter in that book on what it's like to experience heavy icing. X-Plane doesn't model it perfectly, but you get that feeling that suddenly lead weights have been added to your plane.

I would say the Aircraft Manufacturer. This is the reason why we have Boeing's and Cessna's in our Flight Sims and Grand Theft Auto does not. Their is a limit to what you can and cannot do with someone else's products. Their lawyers will tell you what you cannot do.

 

So if the lawyers have no objections, damage is fine? ( I would like that on the record!) 

 

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.

 

You know what? I think its useless. It's been repeated that this is what's being asked for multiple times, yet people just keep right on mischaracterizing.

This is the reason why I pointed out that Texture Modification over 3D Model changes is probably the best line in the sand. 

 

Showing superficial imagery using textures to show scuff marks is one thing, wings breaking off is another. 

 

I don't think we will find a manufacturer that would consent to showing wings breaking off on their products or anything of a catastrophic nature.

I just did an intentional belly landing of a Beechcraft plane to show how it works in X-Plane (see image link above). The final image shows the plane smoking on the runway. Are the Beech lawyers going to come pounding on my door now, or stop Carenado from selling that model?

:smile:

 

I don't use X-Plane but from what I understand no modification was made to the Beech model itself and the smoke was just an external effect. If Beech had an issue with this obviously we would all know about it as the lawyers would be pursuing X-Plane

 

Also note that Carenado never sells any of their products as Beech or Cessna, etc, They always sell them as Carenado C152 or Carenado C90 King Air, They always drop the manufacturer's name in their product line, probably a good reason why they do that too.

I don't think we will find a manufacturer that would consent to showing wings breaking off on their products or anything of a catastrophic nature

 

Well in the first moment, we have a Swift S1 losing a wing. Right after that, we have a Cessna 172 skyhawk having a bad day. Then we have a Jodel Robin DR 400 / 140 B Major taking a flip, and right after that we have an Extra 300 LX going bouncy bouncy. The list goes on.

 

 

As I stated in a previous post (and I included a video as well) not all planes in the Flight unlimited series had damage modeling, but those where it was allowed did, and I don't think anyone is asking more than that. I would also note that certain A2A aircraft have apparently had (light) damage modeling for a while with not a hint of controversy......

 

Does that mark those A2A planes as arcade models?

Well in the first moment, we have a Swift S1 losing a wing. Right after that, we have a Cessna 172 skyhawk having a bad day. Then we have a Jodel Robin DR 400 / 140 B Major taking a flip, and right after that we have an Extra 300 LX going bouncy bouncy. The list goes on.

 

Wow this keeps going in circles....Aerofly is not using the trade names Cessna, Jodel, or Extra like FSX or P3D does. Quick visit to their web page and you can see that

 

I also mentioned above Crash Modeling was also used in MSFS as well and was eventually removed at the request of the Manufacturers, around the same time a Cessna logo first appeared on a Microsoft Flight Simulator box. Flight Unlimited was back in the 1990's before this request was made by Manufacturers. 

 

Amazing you seem to want a lot out of a product line that other people own. It is up to them and not you or anyone else on here. We are lucky to be able to use other people products in our Flight Sims as we have but if we want to do things to other people products they don't want us to do then we will end up like GTA5 with generic looking aircraft. Is that a better option for you to suit your flight simming needs?

Wow this keeps going in circle....Aerofly is not using the trade names Cessna, Jodel, or Extra like FSX or P3D does. Quick visit to their web page and you can see that

 

I also mentioned above Crash Modeling was also used in MSFS as well and was eventually removed at the request of the Manufacturers, around the same time a Cessna logo fist appeared on a Microsoft Flight Simulator box

 

You mean a web page like this one? :Whistle:

 

https://www.aerofly.com/aerofly_fs_1/aerofly_fs_1_aircraft.html

You mean a web page like this one? :Whistle:

 

https://www.aerofly.com/aerofly_fs_1/aerofly_fs_1_aircraft.html

 

Check mate, I think.

You mean a web page like this one? :Whistle:

 

https://www.aerofly.com/aerofly_fs_1/aerofly_fs_1_aircraft.html

Haha I didn't get that far but was looking for it. It would be up to Cessna to pursue that if they wanted to.

 

You bet if you did that to a Boeing they would take major steps against you though. FSX and PMDG both did very good jobs of getting a Boeing license and I appreciate that. Meant they played by Boeing's rules and we benefit from a great aircraft model from PMDG

OK, I think everyone has had their say...more than a few times.  Time to move on.