Evening all,I've doing doing a lot of hours in my addon aircraft over the last month or so. The Level-D 767 is brilliant for systems and failure modelling (but it doesn't sound quite right), The Dreamfleet 727 has a great visual and handling feel to it (but the hydraulic and electrical systems aren't complete) and the avionics on the Piper Meridian are spot on (but only Mr Frolov and his Dash 8 come close to a good turboprop model).However, I've got only one plane on my shopping list for 2006: The PMDG 747. It seems to advertise everything that pushes my buttons: accurate systems modelling, smooth frame rates, accurate flight dynamics and engine performance, failure modelling, great customer support and it looks good too!Trouble is, Long haul isn't my favourite staple diet. I want all this in a GA plane too! The Dreamfleet Baron looks very nice. But the trouble with most planes to date (including the DF Baron no doubt) is that you can just hop in and burn around in them without a care in the world for things like MAINTENANCE and FAILURES. Just apply full throttle, let your engine instruments go beyond the red line and away you go.So in short, accurate failure modelling is what I want. I don't want Microsoft's way of handling failures (i.e. gauranteed failures in a certain timeframe for a specific system). I want something a little more sophisticated than that:If you thrash your plane, chances are it won't break. But over time, the more hours you put into it (overthrottling, applying brakes too hard, hard landing, not letting the engine warm up on cold days etc...) the greater the likelihood of things going wrong.I want checklists to be things that you ignore at your peril (e.g. does the engine rev up properly before takeoff?). I want carburretor heat to actually do something (i.e. if you don't use it regularly in certain climatic conditions, engine performance degrades). I want pitot static covers and gear pins that you have to remove (that would be cool, a virtual walk around)So, certain benchmarks have been set in 2005. What do you want to see in 2006?Anthony Dyer

>>So in short, accurate failure modelling is what I want. I>don't want Microsoft's way of handling failures (i.e.>gauranteed failures in a certain timeframe for a specific>system). I want something a little more sophisticated than>that:>If we we're to experience "real" failures as often as a simmer would want when numerous failures were modeled, then seriously...........I'd quit real flying. If most can go a lifetime without a real engine failure, then what kind of "realistic" failure modeling whould satisfy the average simmer?Within the sim, I'll pull the mixture over mountainous areas to simulate a hopeful glide back to safety, but if engine outs over rugged mountainous areas were common in real life, then I'd forget it. IMO, the majority tend to maintain planes in real life, and I don't think a high degree of failure modeling is a top priority for what amounts to a minority.L.Adamson

I agree...failures are not the type of things I'm looking for in aircraft.If you want an up to date general aviation experiance I highly recommend the EagleSoft Cirrus SR20...or better yet the SR22 due to be released within days. This aircraft sets the example of what the future of general aviation is moving towards. I've heard more than one real world Cirrus pilot who flys the EG model to keep 'current' on how the Cirrus 'works'. That pretty much says it all to me.I also fly the Beachcraft Bonanza, the Carenado 'old school' 206, Piper 180, etc...and the Flight 1 172 with regularity. Not as 'cutting edge' as the Cirrus (The Bonanza may be closest), but still appropriate in today's aviation world. And all very well modeled.

Anthony, you should take a look at the Aeroworx King Air B200. It features engine wear, engine oil level, tire wear, etc. It should give you the type of complexity/realism you are looking for in a GA aircraft.Jim

>If most can go a lifetime without a real engine failure, then what kind >of "realistic" failure modeling whould satisfy the average simmer?For me, it would be having to operate your plane within its limits - or else! There's also the element of suprise with failure modelling, whether it's something mundane like a lightbulb blowing or something more serious like an oil leak leading to an engine overtemp condition. I wasn't quite thinking of engine failures happening every 3 flights...As a comparision:Within the Level-D sim, I have my failures set to 3 per day. Quite a high rate for a modern aircraft, but most flights go without a hitch. When something happens though, it's usually something mundane that I can deal with (e.g. an IRU failure) - but at least it grabs my attention. I'm still waiting for an engine failure and I doubt it will happen soon. But when it does, dealing with it will just make my flight more interesting.Drill practise is important for most aviators I suppose, but it's the element of suprise that makes failures a bit more interesting for me.Anthony Dyer