Better visual crash damage...

[Guest christian]

I agree with the people who don't want to have fancy crash effects - resources can be spent in other areas more constructively.However, the crash message with following reload annoys the #### out of me. Not sure what to do instead, but how about showing some graphs of angle of descent/impact, speed profile, etc of the last couple of minutes before the crash. This way people can analyse what went wrong. And an ability to restart the flight one ore two minutes before crashing would be great also...Cheers,Christian

[Guest garwig2]

>...However, the crash message with following reload annoys the>#### out of me. Not sure what to do instead, but how about>showing some graphs of angle of descent/impact, speed profile,>etc of the last couple of minutes before the crash. This way>people can analyse what went wrong...I completely agree. I rarely crash, so when I do crash I want to know why I crashed, but since FS04 automatically reloads I can't view the replay, or any analysis, or anything. I need *some* options after the CRASH message instead of the automatic reload.-Gary Letona

[Guest yarvelling]

Perhaps a good way to deal with the whole issue would be for the 'CRASH' bar to actually report different messages: "Bird-Strike; Engine #", or "Nose Gear Collapse", "Flame Out; Engine #", etc..... This should then allow the sim to continue, giving you the chance to take evasive actions and either attempt a landing or to fly to the nearest airport, rather than just rebooting the flight!There would be little to be gained by having a well modelled 3D visual of the incident surely, because in trying to control the aircraft against whatever has happened, you're going to be be too busy to pop into spot-view to check it out! If you are unfortunate enough to hit a building, or mountain, then really the 'Crash' bar is enough to tell you that you've just destroyed to plane and killed everyone on board.I like the ideas put forward in the last couple of posts, allowing for the option to then review the cause the accident to see if you could have avoided it, or how well you coped!

[maxter 0]

>Let's see. I have a ten foot pole. Hmm. Nope, not long>enough. Mmmmmm, don't blame you. I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand any greater crash detail will be exploited by the alarmist "no more violence in games mob" and the status quo will be derided by the "inappropriate flying should be appropriately punished by gratuitus detailed damage, blood, guts and gore mob" :-) (Note the smiley folks)...I personally feel there is a middle ground that provides a opportunity for folks to learn from their mistakes such as too high a sink rate at landing causing some bent gear, flat tyre etc. Maybe not for this version but welcome in the future anyway... You MSFS developer guys will never win this one :-)Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

[LAdamson 240]

>>Definately in agreement with you. This is a Flight Simulator>not a game. Accidents happen in real life with real pilots.>The advantage of knowing the damage you have done to your>aircraft and the ability to deal with the effects can go a>long way in helping you become a better pilot.>It is quite an advantage to practice in-flight emergencies,>small colisions in non life-threatening simulated environment>in order to know how to avoid or at least minimize potential>colisions in real life where you rarely get a second chance to>examine the situation and learn from it!>No........... You'll learn little from immitating airframe damageSeeing what's left of an airplane doesn't help a bit. You need to read the followups on an accident such as the NTSB reports, or articles such as "Never Again" in Flying Magazine.I'm a pilot, and I live next to an airport. I seen the results of the following linked accident, with three fatalities, on the road behind my home. It's just a blackened pile of rubble, with very few recognizable parts. I learned nothing from whats left, but much from the resulting reports and talking to people at the airport. It's what I learned after, that makes a difference in how I fly.http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=...N05FA114&akey=1L.Adamson

[Guest davidvoogd]

I would like to see visual damage for items relating to pilot skill, or lack there of. I don't see any need for explosions from hitting the ground or mid air collisions, and definatley don't believe any effects for hitting a building are necessary.However I would absolutely love to see my landing gear snap off when I land with too much sideways movement in a crosswind, my wings bend from pulling way too many G's or by flying into a thunderstorm, the prop break off partially from hitting a bird. It would also be nice to have random emergencies such as engine failures and fires, flaps not working or maybe even just one working the other not, have my aileron control cable snap and have to control with rudder only etc.I think these types of crashes, with visual effects can be educational, they certainly shouldn't offend anyone, and they will keep you on your toes, just like you should in a real aircraft. Of course these things don't happen all that often, but it could even be helpful, to a limited extent, to have practiced this in the sim.Plus for those who don't want to be bothered by such things, have an option to turn it off, that's quite simple.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>However I would absolutely love to see my landing gear snap off when I land with too much sideways movement in a crosswind, my wings bend from pulling way too many G's or by flying into a thunderstorm, the prop break off partially from hitting a bird. It would also be nice to have random emergencies such as engine failures and fires, flaps not working or maybe even just one working the other not, have my aileron control cable snap and have to control with rudder only etc.

[Guest nels]

Does this forum have the ability to do a poll? That might be quite interesting for the FSX developers and would save them alot of time to assess the majority vote / requests instead of reading every message.If this forum doesn't support polls there is this website that........(boring).....http://snappoll.com/poll/71833.php

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

LAdamson,Like I said to Peter, I'm sorry you had to witness that. But I have two points to make.First, you say that nothing is learned from the wreckage, but nothing could be further from the truth. How do you think the NTSB wrote that report? They got a most of the information by examining the crash site. There is much to be learned from each and every accident.Second, I fail to see why some people are having a hard time making the distinction between game and reality. As I've said twice before in this thread, I don't think anyone is asking for blood, guts, and/or body parts here. Some people are advocating the destruction or partial destruction of what is obviously nothing more than hollow tube of polygons created in GMax...No one has answered my question about how they felt about FSII's air combat module, or about FS5's default airplanes that broke up in-flight when overstressed, and the pieces that spun to the ground in loose formation. Are those grotesque portrayals death and mayhem? Or is it a visual feedback to the GAMER, that he messed up?FS is GAME, played on a PC. When we crash, we reset the GAME or we just turn it off. Similarly, the Aliens in DOOM never die, the soldiers in FarCry never die, Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker don't really exist, and we're not really driving at 150mph in PGR3. Its all PRETEND. No-one gets hurt. Oh, one more question. Flight Unlimited had crash effects so realistic that your aircraft kicked up clouds of dirt as it broke into hundreds of pieces. If you had managed to crash onto the side of hill, the wheels, cowlings and other round parts would actually start to roll down the hill. How do you feel about that? Is it okay because it was only one simulated person, and not potentially hundreds? What about the non-simulated people on the ground? Were there any hurt when you crashed? How is it okay for FU, but not for FS? Help me understand.Nick

[Geofa 108]

"First, you say that nothing is learned from the wreckage, but nothing could be further from the truth. How do you think the NTSB wrote that report? They got a most of the information by examining the crash site. There is much to be learned from each and every accident."Not true-the ntsb examines what happened before the flight-the condition of the pilot (drugs, alchohol), mental conditions and pressures, weather, flight plans,mechanical records and history of the aircraft amoung hundreds of other things-and these reports usually take months to produce before a determination is made. A superficial look at the wreckage will really tell nothing-as would damage in the sim which might -or more likely not at all model what would happen in the real world.To your second point-I don't think anyone has a problem simulating systems failures of many kinds-I would be very happy for that. However, a animation of a destruction sequence in my opinion would be game like (too many variables to model exactly what would happen in the real world anyway), not necessary to get the point across (I like the idea of a printed report that might say for instance that a real life landing like you just made might have resulted in a broken landing gear). Since you ask-How do I feel about the animated crashes? Don't need it-not necessary-and I feel that could be part of a "game" but should not be part of something which is billed as a serious sim. I have been flying for real for 16 years and have never had a crash-I have had a lot of other things that the sim doesn't simulate yet-why not go for the higher probabilities?I don't consider FS a "game" but a simulator. Gore maybe appropriate on the shoot 'em ups my son plays-but not on a serious flight sim. Besides, every programming aspect of the sim takes time away from another-and there are many real world things that still need to be gotten right before taking time away from them for something like this imho.Then of course there are the "big picture" pr. aspects that exist since 9/11 that could very well destroy our hobby if not careful. There was a lot of talk after 9/11 of pulling flight sim for a number of reasons. I can just see the pr. when some news hungry media guy does a story showing how wonderfully airplanes explode in fs when flying into tall buildings in the middle of cities. No thanks-I'd like to keep our sim intact for future versions.....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

GeofAs usual beautifully put.Peter

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Good Points "Geofa". I'd still argue that the NTSB gleans a lot more from the wreckage of an accident than you're saying. There's only one way to tell if there was any fuel left, or how fast they were going, or if the gear was down, or if there were a mechanical failure, or any one of ten thousand things that can only be determined by looking at the wreckage itself. But I see your point that they do a lot of looking into the events leading up to accident. Good insight.I wanted to make some comments about the rest of it, but I have to head to work. I can't post from there, so I'll be sure post again tomorrow morning.Nick

[LAdamson 240]

>Good Points "Geofa". >>I'd still argue that the NTSB gleans a lot more from the>wreckage of an accident than you're saying. There's only one>way to tell if there was any fuel left, or how fast they were>going, or if the gear was down, or if there were a mechanical>failure, or any one of ten thousand things that can only be>determined by looking at the wreckage itself. But I see your>point that they do a lot of looking into the events leading up>to accident. Good insight.>Well of course, info is also gathered from the accident site, but Geoff's point, as was mine, is that looking at a superficial animated wreakage on a flight simulator would amount to no more than me looking at a pile of charred rubble from a short distance.For instance, in the accident I linked to, the position of the mixture control is an important point, because it's a high altitude airport, and the pilot was familiar with takeoffs from a sea-level airport. Leaning before takeoff makes a big difference in performance here.As to me, I actually build real airplanes , and am very familiar with what might mechanically go wrong, or if the airplane was over weight, in addtion to scenarios such as fuel starvation, high density altitude, etc.L.Adamson

[Manny 1,293]

>>>....>I have also had an electrical failure where I shut down all>that I could to conserve what I had left.>>The flaps were electrically driven and I can well remember the>rattling sound as they came down very slowly for landing.>......>I have had bird strikes on the screen and prop. It would have>to be a massive bird the size of a swan to break off a prop.>>Small birds leave a red stain a large bird might bend the prop>tip but I doubt it would break off.>>The same with the screen! a red mess. I have no idea what>would happen if the impact was severe enough to break the>screen?>>You could bend the props in a gear up landing and crumple the>plane and I would not be totally against that.>>I would be against glorifying crashes and making them>something to have fun with especially if such crashes would>result in fatalities.>>I would really rather MS spent their time and money on making>a realistic landing experience because breaking off landing>gear and props is pretty pointless if the landing motion is>poorly modelled in the first place which at present it is.>>Peter>>Peter, I am curious. If you had an electric failure, why would you have even attempted to land with flaps? Imagine having an out of sync flaps... Thats a lot worse... Couldn't you land without flaps? BTW..what aircraft was it? Hmmmm.....About Bird Strikes,,, a 1 lb Bird at 100 miles an hr produces...100 Lbs of force. Yes ...many a windshield breaks.. Some cases the bird jsut gets stuck in the windshield which is good.. if it simply goes through and leaves a gaping hole.. thats a near disaster unless the pilots does something like open a door or asks his passenger to smash the glass at the back to let the on rushing air out.There was an accident here at McKinney airport in the dallas Frtworth area about 3 years ago. A CFI and his student pilot went down.. for the same reason and they did not do anything about the gush of air stalling the aircraft. I would like the flight dynamics to change depending on the physical change of the aircraft. As of now you can fly a FS9 aircraft with the door open ajar and all kinds of things attached to it.. It would be still fly nicely.Manny

[Murmur 3,941]

>if it simply goes through and leaves a gaping hole..>thats a near disaster unless the pilots does something like>open a door or asks his passenger to smash the glass at the>back to let the on rushing air out.WOW! I didn't know that the increased drag due to the hole in the windshield were enough to take the a/c's down... :-eek Marco