Better visual crash damage...

[Manny 1,293]

From your article."Some of the physics of a bird encounter may pique your interest. An FAA flight standards district newsletter mentions that hitting a two-pound seagull - the type of bird most likely to be involved in a bird strike - at a speed of 120 mph results in an impact force of 4,800 pounds. Jets have a much bigger problem. An impact at 600 mph results in a force of more than 35 tons. Frequently, jet engines will be severely damaged or fail as the result of a strike. The U.S. Air Force suffers millions of dollars of losses each year as well as periodic fatalities caused by bird strikes involving high-speed aircraft.The engine of a propeller-driven aircraft is seldom harmed. The danger comes from broken windshields or structural damage to wings or empennage. The danger of a bird joining you in the cockpit should not be underestimated. A firsthand account comes from a Cessna 172 pilot: "With explosive suddenness, the windshield shattered, air rushed in, and my door blew open. There was a thud against the back of my seat, and the noise rose to deafening levels. With increased drag we quickly lost airspeed and altitude." ":)It looks like..his door opened and helped him. Inspite of that..he lost airspeed and alititude due to drag. And that force blew his door open... thats the kind of force you are going to get from the force that keeps the 2600lb metal flying in the air to begin with.....I have taken off with a door open too.. There is no air coming in with an open door so There is no problem with your door opening in flight. Sky divers know this very well.. but a big hole in a windshield is deadly while the doors are tightly shut. A fully throttled 180hp engine is no match for that kind of drag from a flying cup.

[delta november 0]

>Stop bragging already! :)>>I agree with you, in spades. Tom; What makes you think he's braggin?}( Kind of puts me in mind of the guy who went to a "shrink" whogave him a Rorsarch? ink blot test. After identifying twenty in a row as " A naked woman" the shrinksays...Why you're obssesed with sex. The patient replies...ME..Its you with all the dirty pictures!:-eek DennyPs; Wise decision Mike.:-xxrotflmao

[sipos 0]

Hello, I am very new to the AVSIM forums. I

[Guest]

FS is NOT a crash simulator. The attitude you have (wanting to see nice damaged buildings, dead bodies strewn around, etc. and thinking that's all pretty 1337 k3w1) is exactly why that's not modelled.You probably want the screams of people burning in a pool of flaming avgas as well don't you?This community doesn't want people like that, people who think it's fun to fly an aircraft into a building to see how it explodes.Personally I hate all the blood and gore in 90% of the videogames these days. If FS had it as well that might well be enough for me to dump it in the trash.

[Guest wingnut2]

> FS is NOT a crash simulator.Sorry but crashes are a part of the sim. And he didn't say he wanted to see people burning or dead bodies. Now your putting words in his mouth.I think the devs could make a bigger fireball and a bit more debris a bit like the "Massive Crash" mod for FS9. That would be enough. And if the plane clips a tree make it bank left or right.Proper damage and crash modelling will be complex and too time consuming and its really not worth it (IMO)..

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

>>>>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>damage>Thanks for your input regarding your experience as a pilot. I too am greatly disappointed and upset with all aircraft mishaps since a good number of them, (not all), are actually the result of pilot inexperience/pilot error. I do believe that in many cases, (not all), they are preventable and experience plays an important part.I was actually refering to an example that I had posted earlier on in the topic. Let me clarify a bit; I like to use the simulator to practice landings in heavy winds and wind shear. As a student I spend more time in the air than I do landing the aircraft. The simulator affords me the time to spend practicing forced landings, high wind landings, etc. and gives me a reasonable feedback output based on my technique(s). An example would be if I were to touch down on the runway with a VSI that is excessive because of sudden wind shear. If landing gear damage was an actual conseqence of this, I would like to experience it happen, (along with the visual output to know exactly where the damage exists), and try to continue the landing as best as my skill will allow even if the aircraft tips over and a wing scrapes the runway surface. And yes, while in replay mode, I would want to see the damage on the wing that scraped the runway when I was trying to make the necessary inputs to correct the situation and land the aircraft as safely as possible under those circumstances. Regards,Mark.Training exercises involving realistic emergency situations, (not silly ones), help to equip a persons reaction time to make better decisions much quicker. Better and faster reactions can certainly go a long way to change the outcome of an aircraft emergency.>Seeing 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=1>>L.Adamson

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

MarkThis is my last shot at this as I am away after today and anyway I think everyone is clear where they stand.The worst area of flight modelling in MSFS is in the slow speed and landing area of the FDE.I carried out various tests in teh real aircraft. For instance during landing the control column will come back several inches at slow speed and progressively so as speed declines.Ay high cruise speed 1 cm is all that is required to displace the aircraft from its trimmed state to pitch the aircraft ten degrees.The control forces on the elevator and rudder are huge.In MSFS the column movements are fairly consistant. People will say "ahh this is a control problem" but its not! its an FDE problem (I am not talking about control forces.The medium that the aircraft flies in ie the air is not modelled well there is no ground effect there are no realistic air currents.Hence MS need to spend a lot more time and money on making the landing phase of flight much more realistic before there can be any real benefit from modelling undercarriage breaking off.I personally hate anything which is a gimmick in MSFS. I can remember when you hit VNE you had structural damage.Any pilot knows that real world this is not the case. You can break an aircraft below VNE you can go way past VNE and not break an aircraft. So a Gimmick.To be any benefit undercarriage breaking off would have to be modelled in such a way that it was realistic.I would rather MS spent time on so many areas which are important. Flight dynamics and weather before attention was given to these areas.I am all for failures which are challenging and the sim to be immersive and fun and not against landing gear up and its results. All I am against is gloryfying crashes or fatal situations for fun.There is a long way to go before you can use FS as a realistic landing tool. Yes it will give you the basic principles but not to the extent of the examples you use.Peter

[sipos 0]

[Guest tdragger]

I think this thread has run it's course. It's clear from posts here how to handle crashes in FSX.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>>>I think this thread has run it's course. It's clear from posts>here how to handle crashes in FSX.So the thread has finally crashed ;-) I am off Skiing for a week and as I really dont want to carry on crashing there Im out of it too :-)Might get some nice Ski plane pickies from the Altiport at Meribel as I cant resist a glasier landing this time around with my French friend Ski plane instructor.Peter :-)

[Guest lemonadedrinker]

>>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.<< Hi This is an interesting response and would make a fascinating addition to the sim. For exploding buildings you can get CFS3 or summat, but for interesting systems failures and damage making the airplanes harder to fly lets have it in FSX.Andy.

[Guest Foxtrot 125 Tango]

>Mark>>This is my last shot at this as I am away after today and>anyway I think everyone is clear where they stand.>>The worst area of flight modelling in MSFS is in the slow>speed and landing area of the FDE.>>I carried out various tests in teh real aircraft. For instance>during landing the control column will come back several>inches at slow speed and progressively so as speed declines.>>Ay high cruise speed 1 cm is all that is required to displace>the aircraft from its trimmed state to pitch the aircraft ten>degrees.>The control forces on the elevator and rudder are huge.>>In MSFS the column movements are fairly consistant. People>will say "ahh this is a control problem" but its not! its an>FDE problem (I am not talking about control forces.>>The medium that the aircraft flies in ie the air is not>modelled well there is no ground effect there are no realistic>air currents.>>Hence MS need to spend a lot more time and money on making the>landing phase of flight much more realistic before there can>be any real benefit from modelling undercarriage breaking>off.>>I personally hate anything which is a gimmick in MSFS. I can>remember when you hit VNE you had structural damage.>Any pilot knows that real world this is not the case. You can>break an aircraft below VNE you can go way past VNE and not>break an aircraft. So a Gimmick.>>To be any benefit undercarriage breaking off would have to be>modelled in such a way that it was realistic.>>I would rather MS spent time on so many areas which are>important. Flight dynamics and weather before attention was>given to these areas.>>I am all for failures which are challenging and the sim to be>immersive and fun and not against landing gear up and its>results. All I am against is gloryfying crashes or fatal>situations for fun.>>There is a long way to go before you can use FS as a realistic>landing tool. Yes it will give you the basic principles but>not to the extent of the examples you use.>>PeterPeter, I appreciate your expertise here. Perhaps I do take the FS 2004 simulator a bit too seriously. Maybe the reason for this is after having purchased and used MS Flight Simulator for about a year with a yoke and pedals, I got interested in taking flight lessons. During my introductory flight the instructor commented on my ability and was apparently "amazed" that I had never flown a real Cessna 172 prior to the introductory flight. To make a long story short the only real object of concern for the flight instructor was to control the landing flare. There was a crosswind of 8 knots.If MS Flight Simulator is only a game I must confess it's a very realistic one at that! On the other hand if it is in fact a simulator as the title implies, then I have to say well done MS Team for getting me interested in flying and off to a positive start!I agree with you based on your experience with many aircraft and understanding their proper flight dynamics. You would know better than me for sure. I was unaware that the air currents, wind shear, etc. was not modelled accurately in MSFS 2004. I too would prefer the accurate modelling of air movement, flight dynamics, etc. before any type of colision feedback is represented. Otherwise what's the point? At the end of the day all we really want is to acheive as much realism as we can get within the realm a PC Flight Simulation program. Given the constant advancements in low cost higher technology available to us in this day and age I think we can come very close to the accuracy of the older, higher cost professional simulators. I look forward to the new improvements in FSX.Regards,Mark.

[Guest Jimbofly]

If you read the above poster's post carefully you'll realise that it's not about gore and guts and fire and people screaming in agony, it's about modelling the aircraft after bits have fallen off. I frankly agree, and if the team decide not to do it this time around I won't be bothered by it, but it is something that would be a nice addition to the wishlist.IRL there are situations sometimes where a pilot may make an error, clip the wing or hit a bird or something, and then the aircraft becomes a lot more difficult to handle. Another example is damage to the landing gear or maybe a control surface. It's all part of the simulation of flight.I don't expect the next version to have this, and fair enough, the nature of the way the aircraft are aerodynamically modelled makes it extremely difficult, but that's no reason to shut down the idea all together.And there's really no need to jump to conclusions and jump down someone's throat because you happen to disagree.James

[maxter 0]

>>>I think this thread has run it's course. It's clear from posts>here how to handle crashes in FSX.And pray tell Mike, how would that be? :-)Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

[Guest]

maybe not you, but the average person wanting "more detailed crashes" is looking to make FS into a first person shooter (for the kind of detail).Yes, crashing is a reality. But if you don't want to turn FS into a game where people crash aircraft just to see the explosions and flames than you have to tone down the details.It's sad, but that's the way the world works.There's enough kids online who think it's fun to let others crash by flying into them on approach to make most serious simmers turn off aircraft crash detection, what you suggest would only make that worse.