I've read many of the threads that have been posted lately and I don't think anyone has asked this question. (Please correct me if I've missed one :))Will FSX model aircraft failures better than previous versions?To give a specific - nothing happens if you run a Cessna 172 at full power all day long. I'm sure it would in the real world :)At work we have a flight safety news letter. Its full of some minor and some serious mistakes by both aircrew and ground crew.How about a case where all the oil was left out of all four engines on a small commercial jet after service !3 engines failed in the air on the next flight. All four were scrapped!As far as I know no version of FligtSim has ever modelled fatigue or failure or introduced random problems for pilots. (Yes I know there is a way to introduce failures ourselves - but then you know its going to happen.)If FS is supposed to model the real world of flying and failures and mistakes are part of the real world, it would be nice to see them and have to react to them.To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about the sim itself reacting to my poor flying and failing things in response to that and also adding a random element of failure anyway - one that I know nothing about until it happens.For me all the advances in graphics make me wish we had this more not less. Its a Flightsim after all, lets model all of the flying experience, not just looking out of the window :) RegardsMark

I don't think we'll be seeing that in FSX although I could be wrong. Personally I'm not terribly interested in that feature but the thing about FS is that the "audience" is extremely varied. No doubt the FS team take such suggestions seriously and would probably be looking into it. Don't quote me on that. Either way I'm sure they're doing their best to cater to the tastes of the majority.James

I think its one of the main strengths of the FlightSim community that we do all have different tastes and its a testament to the FS Team that we can have a little of everything.With a sim that's so easy to fly from A to B to C without anything ever going wrong don't you think you're missing out on a little excitement on-route?RegardsMark

What about having to make a forced landing due to a problem and then running your own SAR mission ?Wouldn't it be good to be able to land one plane and have FS still display it, so you could jump into another one and try a rescue.. ?RegardsMark

Hi,I assume you mean the default aircraft and panels - there are many examples of addon panels enforcing maintenance and engine control procedures, with the penalty usually being an engine failure.BTW, when I did this it was a support nightmare, so I don't do it anymore...Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

i'm hoping for at least a gear breakage. That would be good enough for me. Or some text saying why i crashed while landing. Sometimes i just crash on a bad landing without knowing what was exactly my mistake. Touched down on the nose gear first? landing on a single gear? tail strike? wing strike? i believe all this input would help in making it easier to learn from our mistakes.instead of just seeing the text CRASH on the screen without knowing which part crashed. Fancy animations are no need. But at least a broken gear would be better. I once did a bad touch and go and broke my nose gear without realising it. U can't see your nose gear sink into the ground from the cockpit. Did a circuit and a full stop after that. crashed without knowing why. before i realised i broke my nose gear much earlier and still attempted a normal landing. If i actually knew i had a broken nose gear. I would try a belly landing. not sure if FS9 actually supported that. but FsPassengers did. and it was fantastic. Without FsPassengers' basic failure system like overspeed effect on gears and flaps. Now that should be a automatic thing in FS. Isn't it part of the aircraft overstressed section?Hector

FS is NOT a crash simulator, and "features" like that would just encourage kids to crash on purpose just to see the nice flames and stuff.That in turn would increase even further the screams to ban flight simulators because they help train terrorists...

Hi Tom,Yes I was talking about the default aircraft and panels.I appreciate that all things can be broken.... via FSUIPC and clever programming by much smarter people than me :)I was really hoping that it would be better catered for in FS itself.RegardsMark

Hiand I'm not asking for a crash simulator, or want to.To take your point literally would mean that crashes of any sort would be bad.It is a simulator and I was only asking to simulate the whole flying experience and as I said mistakes are made by maintenance and pilots alike which can cause a problem when flying.No one ever said that you would crash. I would like to think that you could fly your aircraft to some sort of landing.After all, remember professional pilots do practice emergency's in simulators....FS is a simulator...This sort of subject could easily turn into a flame or argument on a line of thought that I didn't intend, which I hope is clear from my original post.RegardsMark

Well terrorists most likely care less about a crash feature than anyone else.What I like to see would be things like the nose gear is blocked and you are forced to put her down on the nose with flying sparks. But before doing that you have declared an emergency on atc and fire trucks lay out a foam carpet for you.Other things that comes to mind: -brake fires after maximum braking landing-Gear collaps on heavy landing-engine firesbest regards,CG