Crash detection

[Peter Webber 339]

I believe the default airframe stress detection within P3D is not recommended to be active when using PMDG products. It's a pity that an approach upset, or any other upsets in flight end up with no consequence due to crash or stress detection being disabled. I wonder whether PMDG would maybe incorporate their own crash / stress detection algorithms in the future?

Edited December 18, 2018 by Peter Webber

[Ephedrin 418]

To get spanked if you fly into a thunderstorm? 

Aircraft don‘t just fold their wings in reality and I believe your tires die already if your impact is too high.

For everything else.. to be honest I wouldn‘t appreciate any development time that I have to pay just to let me know that I‘ve crashed.. I mean... I know that myself when I f***** up. A landing gear of a 737 endures a LOT more than my nerves and when I slam into the ground that hard that I need a crash notification (or whatever) then I definitely won‘t feel that this was an acceptable landing.

But you are right, the default crash detection should be turned off completely. Starting from the engine stress and ending at the ground equipment collision. It‘s nothing but annoying.

 

My Virtual Airline automatically rejects pireps with a landing rate higher than -550fpm and you'll have to file a manual pirep. you can't count your flight when you touched down with more than -750fpm. While this is complete garbage in terms of realism it still motivates to concentrate and do a properly planned and executed landing. When you use your brain and fly the airplane as it is meant to be flown you're way within the limits. And this counts for all phases of the flight. As long as you don't screw it up intentionally - like a Mach 1 dive and pulling up hard - your airframe won't brake in the air (material fatigue and that stuff excluded, failures are already simulated)

Edited December 18, 2018 by Ephedrin

[scandinavian13 5,192]

The basic crash detection is pretty awful in the sim itself. Beyond that, there exists issues of people using so many different add-ons that things get messy very quickly.

Most people don't think twice about their weather program. If you have our 777 or 747, crack open the Intro Manual and have a look at the section on how many g's common weather apps throw at airplanes just to shake them around a bit (EZDok's "camera" shake function - which, in reality, is wind injection to shake the entire plane in order to shake the VC around - also fits into this category).

Further still, many people don't think about their scenery too often, either. Say you're flying from VHHH to KSFO. You're about a dozen hours into this flight, and you're coming down the pipe perfectly. Then, all of the sudden - WHACK. You get bitten by the mesh/airport incompatibility issue there, and through no fault of your own, or the plane's you get a *CRASH* message, and your half-day investment is gone.

While I can understand some of the curiosity of it, I just see it as something that would get a bunch of hours put into it, only to have sim sessions ended by unrealistic environmental variables...and we all know where the fingers would point...

[Peter Webber 339]

3 hours ago, Ephedrin said:

To get spanked if you fly into a thunderstorm? 

Aircraft don‘t just fold their wings in reality and I believe your tires die already if your impact is too high.

For everything else.. to be honest I wouldn‘t appreciate any development time that I have to pay just to let me know that I‘ve crashed.. I mean... I know that myself when I f***** up. A landing gear of a 737 endures a LOT more than my nerves and when I slam into the ground that hard that I need a crash notification (or whatever) then I definitely won‘t feel that this was an acceptable landing.

But you are right, the default crash detection should be turned off completely. Starting from the engine stress and ending at the ground equipment collision. It‘s nothing but annoying.

 

My Virtual Airline automatically rejects pireps with a landing rate higher than -550fpm and you'll have to file a manual pirep. you can't count your flight when you touched down with more than -750fpm. While this is complete garbage in terms of realism it still motivates to concentrate and do a properly planned and executed landing. When you use your brain and fly the airplane as it is meant to be flown you're way within the limits. And this counts for all phases of the flight. As long as you don't screw it up intentionally - like a Mach 1 dive and pulling up hard - your airframe won't brake in the air (material fatigue and that stuff excluded, failures are already simulated)

Thank you brother. It's just makes landings more realistic when there is a consequence to a botched touch down, etc..in realistic terms.

[Peter Webber 339]

2 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

The basic crash detection is pretty awful in the sim itself. Beyond that, there exists issues of people using so many different add-ons that things get messy very quickly.

Most people don't think twice about their weather program. If you have our 777 or 747, crack open the Intro Manual and have a look at the section on how many g's common weather apps throw at airplanes just to shake them around a bit (EZDok's "camera" shake function - which, in reality, is wind injection to shake the entire plane in order to shake the VC around - also fits into this category).

Further still, many people don't think about their scenery too often, either. Say you're flying from VHHH to KSFO. You're about a dozen hours into this flight, and you're coming down the pipe perfectly. Then, all of the sudden - WHACK. You get bitten by the mesh/airport incompatibility issue there, and through no fault of your own, or the plane's you get a *CRASH* message, and your half-day investment is gone.

While I can understand some of the curiosity of it, I just see it as something that would get a bunch of hours put into it, only to have sim sessions ended by unrealistic environmental variables...and we all know where the fingers would point...

Thanks Kyle. Understood!

[mtrainer 136]

Agreed that there needs to be something in-between "bouncing down the runway" and a simple but sudden freeze of the sim with the small letters at the bottom simply saying "crash". 

Not sure how to pull it off with all the different aircraft types though.  But it would be nice if some add-on airplane manufactures could at least support breaking off landing struts and adding sparks.

I once landed the 747-8i coming in to fast, which required FULL braking to avoid running off the end of the runway.  Sat there for a few minutes watching the brake heat indicators climb, and when I went to taxi I was surprised at how much throttle was required just to get moving again.  Switched to an outside view and the heat-plugs on the tires had blown and they were flat.  Pretty cool stuff.

Mark Trainer

 

[Captain Kevin 586]

1 hour ago, mtrainer said:

Agreed that there needs to be something in-between "bouncing down the runway" and a simple but sudden freeze of the sim with the small letters at the bottom simply saying "crash". 

Some sceneries have this weird thing of having invisible walls built right on the approach path to the runway. With crash detection turned on, you wouldn't even know it was there, so that would make having any sort of crash detection enabled rather difficult.

1 hour ago, mtrainer said:

Not sure how to pull it off with all the different aircraft types though.  But it would be nice if some add-on airplane manufactures could at least support breaking off landing struts and adding sparks.

Don't know how you'd really be able to simulate that properly since I would think the way it would break off would depend on how you landed. In any event, if you're dealing with a company that has licensing with an aircraft manufacturer, I don't think the aircraft manufacturer would take too kindly to stuff like this.

[richjb2 195]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:11 AM, scandinavian13 said:

Most people don't think twice about their weather program. If you have our 777 or 747, crack open the Intro Manual and have a look at the section on how many g's common weather apps throw at airplanes just to shake them around a bit (EZDok's "camera" shake function - which, in reality, is wind injection to shake the entire plane in order to shake the VC around - also fits into this category).

 

So that explains why on very short final the wind changes suddenly and everything goes to hell and handbasket!  

that's getting turned off!

Thanks, Kyle!

Rich Boll

[mtrainer 136]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:25 PM, Captain Kevin said:

Some sceneries have this weird thing of having invisible walls built right on the approach path to the runway. With crash detection turned on, you wouldn't even know it was there, so that would make having any sort of crash detection enabled rather difficult.

Don't know how you'd really be able to simulate that properly since I would think the way it would break off would depend on how you landed. In any event, if you're dealing with a company that has licensing with an aircraft manufacturer, I don't think the aircraft manufacturer would take too kindly to stuff like this. 

Good point.  No aircraft manufacturer would want that kind of negative crash publicity floating around on youtube and such.

Mark Trainer