Aerosoft ENTC in P3Dv4 - be warned

[ErichB 3,638]

Completely understand the frustration, but that is exactly why I have always disabled crash detection.  There were,  in my past experience,  too many anomalies in scenery which caused me the same dread.  

[out 769]

Crash detection in MFS has alway been buggy and, to be honest, kind of total nonsense (it adds literally NOTHING to flightsim realism).
When I crash due to my lack of flying skills (which fortunately happens very rarely), I know it for sure. So it is the first thing I disable after installing another instance of my FS.

From time to time I do read people being angry with some kind of mysterious crashes due to having this option ticked. While I understand almost every oddity when it comes to FS choices (being Boeing or Airbus diehard, flying always the same airport, hating anything larger than Cessna, lol) I could never understand why someone would want to have this nonsensical crash detection on.

So, Richard, a piece of advice from your old FS friend: turn this bloody poo off and enjoy flying to Tromso!

[nealmac 260]

Disabling crash detection is the first thing I do when I do a new install of P3D. It's nothing to do with Aerosoft. It happens at default airports too. While you're sitting in the cockpit doing all your preperations at the gate, there's nothing worse than some gobs**te baggage handler driving around too close to you. All it takes is for him to go a little off course and he'll smack right into you. People are saying turning CD off is unrealistic. Personally I think it makes it more realistic.

[Cargostorm 151]

I also leave crash detection off. No need for it. If you crash, you know anyway. No need for this "feature". And for the landing parameters, I use The Lord of the Landing, which provides me with the sink rate during touch down, centerline deviation, bank angle, heading, and other parameters etc. If I touch down with 400 fpm, I know it's a firm landing. I better go with the numbers than with "crash detection".

As to sceneries, a lot of them suffer from hidden objects. Why bother with them?

[WebMaximus 372]

OK, all of you can't be wrong so even when I didn't think I would change my mind about this one you eventually succeeded converting me over to the dark side guys 

Must say though I still find it really boring with no CD enabled because I really like being able to crash. Of course not crashing in itself but the realism knowing that is what will happen if I don't handle my aircraft correctly just like IRL. And as already mentioned I'm referring to contact with the ground/terrain, not some stupid AI model or another online user picking the same gate I did moments before him.

With all discussions how P3D is a simulator for training to fly aircraft rather than any kind of an arcade game for pure enjoyment I must say I'm surprised this topic on realistic crash modeling hasn't been more discussed and hasn't gotten more attention from LM if they wish to develop a realistic flight simulator suitable for actual training.

And no before anyone gets upset...I'm not talking about seeing nasty details that could alarm some people looking at it the wrong way.

I'm talking about knowing when you screwed up and when you didn't based on a realistic and fully functional crash detection system without having to use any external add-on such as that The Lord of the Landing mentioned above that I need to check out. Sounds like a very interesting add-on while waiting for hopefully one day having a better CD system in place out of the box.

[out 769]

30 minutes ago, WebMaximus said:

Of course not crashing in itself but the realism knowing that is what will happen if I don't handle my aircraft correctly just like IRL

And that, Richard, is exactly where I would kindly disagree.
MFS/P3D Crash Detection has as much in common with realism as addition does with subtraction.

If you like realism - TURN IT OFF.

[Cargostorm 151]

1 hour ago, WebMaximus said:

Must say though I still find it really boring with no CD enabled because I really like being able to crash. Of course not crashing in itself but the realism knowing that is what will happen if I don't handle my aircraft correctly just like IRL. And as already mentioned I'm referring to contact with the ground/terrain, not some stupid AI model or another online user picking the same gate I did moments before him.

Richard, a crash is defined if you have too much energy when touching the ground. Just set yourself a limit in regard of the sink rate during touch down and use this tool (download link is on the bottom): http://planeman-fs.blogspot.de/2012/05/lord-of-landing-v17.html

It works with P3D V4.1 and it is all you need. It even allows you to practice landings by beaming you 4 nm to 12 nm on final.The tool connects via Simconnect and does not hit fps.

My landing in an airliner is usually at 150 - 300 fpm (without floating). During Crosswinds it is a bit higher and hence firmer. I am not going higher than 450 - 500  fpm if you want to avoid an inspection Everything > 600 fpm usually alarms the onboard monitoring system. Everything above 800 - 1000 fpm I would call a "crash" with serious damage to the gear.

With an single engine GA it is usually 35 to 70 fpm @ touchdown. With a twin GA, it's usually around 75 to 150 fpm.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

Gentlemen,

There are many different reasons why such a crash would occur, and they all have to do with scenery design, how competitive it is and what customers expect these days.  Often times it has to do with depressions or adding invisible objects so that other things in the scenery work. It's normal, and a number of scenery devs do this.

Though the OP now understands that crash detection should always be turned off, I'll add that it has been STANDARD ADVICE for the past 10 years to disable crash detection for payware scenery.

Look, I'm a flight simmer first, but I also work with and perform tech support for a number of leading developers, and the stuff I sometimes see is shameful, as is the title of this post.

Please, for Pete's sake, if you THINK there is a problem with a flight sim product then don't run to AVSIM or anywhere else and create a post with such a dramatic and inflamatory title.  We're better than that!  Just ask the developer.  You know, in doing tech support for a number of leading developers, about 90% of what I do is educating customers - in other words, 90% of the time it's ignorance and is usually born out of not reading the product documentation (though I'm not saying this in this case as I don't have the scenery in question).

 

Best wishes.

[WebMaximus 372]

3 hours ago, Rafal said:

And that, Richard, is exactly where I would kindly disagree.
MFS/P3D Crash Detection has as much in common with realism as addition does with subtraction.

If you like realism - TURN IT OFF.

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean to say I find the current implementation of CD realistic but I do like knowing a bad landing will also end in a bad result rather than just bouncing up in the air again.

2 hours ago, Cargostorm said:

Richard, a crash is defined if you have too much energy when touching the ground. Just set yourself a limit in regard of the sink rate during touch down and use this tool (download link is on the bottom): http://planeman-fs.blogspot.de/2012/05/lord-of-landing-v17.html

It works with P3D V4.1 and it is all you need. It even allows you to practice landings by beaming you 4 nm to 12 nm on final.The tool connects via Simconnect and does not hit fps.

My landing in an airliner is usually at 150 - 300 fpm (without floating). During Crosswinds it is a bit higher and hence firmer. I am not going higher than 450 - 500  fpm if you want to avoid an inspection Everything > 600 fpm usually alarms the onboard monitoring system. Everything above 800 - 1000 fpm I would call a "crash" with serious damage to the gear.

With an single engine GA it is usually 35 to 70 fpm @ touchdown. With a twin GA, it's usually around 75 to 150 fpm.

Cheers,
Chris

 

Will definitely check this tool out, thanks for the tip Chris!

2 hours ago, DaveCT2003 said:

Gentlemen,

There are many different reasons why such a crash would occur, and they all have to do with scenery design, how competitive it is and what customers expect these days.  Often times it has to do with depressions or adding invisible objects so that other things in the scenery work. It's normal, and a number of scenery devs do this.

Though the OP now understands that crash detection should always be turned off, I'll add that it has been STANDARD ADVICE for the past 10 years to disable crash detection for payware scenery.

Look, I'm a flight simmer first, but I also work with and perform tech support for a number of leading developers, and the stuff I sometimes see is shameful, as is the title of this post.

Please, for Pete's sake, if you THINK there is a problem with a flight sim product then don't run to AVSIM or anywhere else and create a post with such a dramatic and inflamatory title.  We're better than that!  Just ask the developer.  You know, in doing tech support for a number of leading developers, about 90% of what I do is educating customers - in other words, 90% of the time it's ignorance and is usually born out of not reading the product documentation (though I'm not saying this in this case as I don't have the scenery in question).

Best wishes.

Been working with support and consulting in different roles within the IT sector myself for 20+ years and have been simulating flight even longer as well as being a member of beta teams developing some of the most popular add-ons for our flight simulators.

With that out of the way it's not that I haven't heard many people are disabling CD. More that I haven't had to myself until now since I never experienced any issues having it enabled (other vehicles option not included) with one exception being FlyTampa EKCH which was addressed swiftly by the developer.

As for "dramatic and inflamatory" as well as "running to Avsim" let me assure you it was more of a slow walk after already both reading as well as posting also over at the developers site. Reason for the title and for the post here was just as the title suggests, to warn fellow guys in here to not fall into the same hole I did after a 4+ hours flight last night.

This however was before I knew I was the only guy left on Avsim still having CD enabled 

Finally, if you want to mark words used or how things are expressed I suggest you spend some of your time following the link in my first post and read some of the things said by Aerosoft themselves or their forum moderators.

Now, there you will find some true examples of how to not address your customers and acting shamefully and let me assure you it's not the one-time-only type of thing. Unfortunately I have seen this many times and not just over at Aerosoft and their forums but also elsewhere.

I even talked in private with Mathijs about this once in the past and kindly asked him to bring this up with some of the guys in his staff. I received a very polite and friendly response from Mathijs and afterwards the attitude changed for the better which felt great I'm sure both for us as well as for Aerosoft. Some other developers could certainly need a course how to interact with your customers as well but problem is being in this niche market you can pretty much act any way you like if you're a developer with no true competition.

So Dave, thanks for all good advice but I think I'll manage and now I suggest we get back on track so we won't need any CD system for this derailed discussion 

[Jim Young 2,356]

I agree.  Bring this discussion back on track or it will be closed. Ranting (or inciting our membership) is not allowed here as it only causes some members to violate our rules and troll too.  DaveCT2003 is correct.  There are many reasons for a sim to crash and the aircraft is just one of them.  One needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Aerosoft caused the crash because of their product.  We need to move on or this topic will be closed superfast.  Everyone needs to take a deep breath and move on.  Thanks for everyone's cooperation! 

[WebMaximus 372]

11 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

One needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Aerosoft caused the crash because of their product.

This has already been done long time ago over here.

I would also like to clarify that this has never been about the simulator crashing (like a CTD) but rather how your aircraft crash into something invisible while simply rolling down the runway.

If you have a spot close to a terminal building for example where you might crash if you go too close to that building although without touching it, that I think is understandable and acceptable considering the rough implementation of the current CD system in P3D.

However, having the same thing happening while rolling down the main runway as in this case with no visible objects nearby...that I don't think is cool nor acceptable and certainly not for a payware product. And it did work just fine in P3Dv3 so this is something new for P3Dv4 and is related to this specific scenery product. No question about it.

Oh well, crash detection has been disabled so here I come and I never felt more invincible 

[Jim Young 2,356]

48 minutes ago, WebMaximus said:

I would also like to clarify that this has never been about the simulator crashing (like a CTD) but rather how your aircraft crash into something invisible while simply rolling down the runway.

Thanks Richard for the clarification.  I think you're wise to just turn off crash detection until a solution, if any, is found.  Even in FSX, there were several airports that seemed to have invisible objects as I saw a lot of crashes at airports over the years.  I have a feeling runway and taxiway signs and lights are maybe closer than they look and P3D thinks you hit one?  Might have been the cause in FSX too!  But this has probably already been discussed.  Hope you can enjoy P3DV4 in the future.  The tech is getting better and better and we should all be very happy and thankful to see that after using FSX exclusively for many, many years!

Best regards,

Jim

[WebMaximus 372]

33 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

The tech is getting better and better and we should all be very happy and thankful to see that after using FSX exclusively for many, many years!

Couldn't agree more Jim!

Things are currently looking better than they did in a very long time I would say within our community with lots of hope for what the future will bring  

[vgbaron 3,512]

Hitting invisible objects has been an issue for many years. As others, the first thing I do is disable CD . I'd certainly venture a guess that the majority of FS users do NOT have CD enabled. I also think this creates a situation where many dev's, when faced with the issue, just tell user to turn CD off. 

Vic

[WebMaximus 372]

7 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

Hitting invisible objects has been an issue for many years. As others, the first thing I do is disable CD . I'd certainly venture a guess that the majority of FS users do NOT have CD enabled. I also think this creates a situation where many dev's, when faced with the issue, just tell user to turn CD off. 

Vic

Yep, this certainly seems to be the case looking at this thread.