Better visual crash damage...

[Guest Water Mango]

I don't know if anyone else mentioned this but it would be nice for once to see realistic visual damage in Flight Simulator. It's been far too long the only thing one sees when crashing is a pause and a message stating, 'Crash'. If I crashed a 747, it would be nice to see a better representation of that. If I run into a building it would be nice to see damage both on the plane and the building. A fatal dive in a 737 from say 27,000ft should leave nothing but a hole in the ground. Not trying to sound morbid here but hopefully we see something better than a pause in the sim with the plane hanging in the air waiting for the flight to reload...

[1mikel151 71]

You can add lots more effects with a couple of addons and also adding a line to the aircraft CFG "visual_damage=1"I agree that more realism is needed if you do happen to crash, even make it to where that aircraft can't be used for an amount of time.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

[crvm 0]

Just think about what you are really asking for. 9/11 still very clear in most minds, what do you think the airlines who let the community use their logos would think about all the little Johnnys of the world crashing 757/767s into buildings in such graphic fashion? Or anyone who has been directly involved in any manner with such horrible crashes, to believe that Microsoft could be so inexcusably wreckless to let anyone mimic these acts in their sim is beyond my comprehension. I hope and have a good feeling that it ain't gonna happen and I support them for taking some sort of stand thus far... ...............Randy J. Smith................A PROUD MEMBER OF THE PMDG BETA TEAM[h4]Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations[/h4]

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

I echo Randys comments. Having also lost three friends in real aviation crashes and seen the misery such crashes cause, I have no desire for MS to waste time and money which could be better spent on other aspects of the sim.Aircraft failures are another matter as they involve the challenge and descision making required to make the flight safe and are part and parcel of what the pilot has to be prepared for.Peter

[Guest nels]

I agree with Randys comments.Lets top talking about this ridiculous topic now.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

>Lets top talking about this ridiculous topic now.So, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute...Plenty of automotive simulations show realistic damage when hitting walls or getting into Turn 1 pile-ups. Similarly, many, many more people die in auto accidents than plane crashes. So by your standards, should all games should be devoid of any realistic damage tendencies? Let me also say this: I'm an aviation professional, and my job is to assure safety of flight. So I don't take the subject of safety lightly.Obviously then, when I "fly" in FS, my goal is not to plant a 767 into the WTC. However, this is an entertainment title, and it would be silly not to acknowledge the fact that not everyone takes it as seriously as me, or you.I hardly think that anyone here is advocating that graphic violence be portrayed. No one wants to see bodies, or body bags, or death tolls. Just something other than a red bar that says "crash".Please don't mock someone else's ideas just because they don't fit your ethos. Nick

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>Plenty of automotive simulations show realistic damage when hitting walls or getting into Turn 1 pile-ups. Similarly, many, many more people die in auto accidents than plane crashes. So by your standards, should all games should be devoid of any realistic damage tendencies?

[Guest GabrielR]

Agree with previous comments, not to be rude, but what do you expect to see, a fire ball crashing into a mountain, and dozens of mutilated bodies (of course simulated) on the floor?

[Guest Derek D]

Personally, I really wish this topic wasn't so taboo that whenever an overly sensitive person reads it he wishes for the thread's closure.Let's refer to the frequent debate of whether MSFS should be referred to as a simulator or a game. Most people will happily defend MSFS's status as a simulator, but then wouldn't that imply that it should be simulating every aspect of flight? If you are involved in an incident that involves banging up a piece of the plane, wouldn't it be an interesting challenge to try to bring the plane down safely rather than reading a rather dull "CRASH" message that already assumes you died? And please, I don't want to be bombarded with responses from dozens of self-proclaimed expert pilots who claim that you should never be involved in an accident in flight simulator. I've "crashed" in MSFS before, as I'm sure everyone else has, but it hasn't traumatized me to a point where I thought "oh my God that could have happened in real life" and I stop playing forever, instead I keep practicing...because flight simulator is a learning tool.Having said that there does need to be more realistic damage modelling in the sim--perhaps not the extent described by the original poster where the buildings themselves get damaged, nor the point where corpses can be seen scattered on the ground, but I think as long as the plane is still up in the air and the pilot isn't "dead" then the plane should remain in our command with all of its wounds. Or maybe there could just be an option for it :(.Derek D.

[Murmur 3,941]

>>Lets top talking about this ridiculous topic now.>>So, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute...Agree with you Nick. I don't see nothing wrong in having a graphic representation of e.g. an engine explosion, airframe damages after a crash landing, structural failures when airframe overstressed, or even total destruction of airframe after a crash. I think it's ridicolous to get offended by such things.Marco

[Manny 1,293]

I have a solution.At time of install, ask 1 Question.Are you going to be using FSim as a game or as a simulator. If the answer is "Game", provide for all kinds of crash an explosion and stuff... if its "simulator" focus on the main things and forget about crashes visual quality.;)Manny

[Guest fsxcess]

My opinion is that damage to an aircraft should only come from a failure within the aircraft. Therefore, valid causes for visual damage or stress on the aircraft would be things like: excessive engine vibration, high temperatures/pressures, g-loading, heavy landings, tail strikes etc... The exceptions would be bird strikes to cause engine damage and lighting stikes. If the aircraft could represent these problems visually then if the aircraft did fall to the ground then the simple "CRASH" message would be sufficient.There would be no purpose to seeing an aircraft crash, break apart and explode. Instead, a bird strike causing excessive engine vibration and flames would have a purpose because you would have to manage the problem.Real pilots face genuine problems all the time, both in reality and in full-motion simulations. Therefore, I don't see any reason why FS should not be similar.Obviously if someone tries to fly into the scenery then the crash is not born from the aircraft so the crash message is fine.

[Guest Derek D]

By why the double standard regarding damage caused internally and damage caused externally? It seems rather arbitrary that damage caused by the scenery is immoral and shouldn't be simulated whereas other kinds of damage is fine. I'm sure most people would agree that a failure is a failure, regardless of what may have caused it.

[Guest DC10Pilot]

Agree with you Nick. I don't see nothing wrong in having a graphic representation of e.g. an engine explosion, airframe damages after a crash landing, structural failures when airframe overstressed, or even total destruction of airframe after a crash. I think it's ridicolous to get offended by such things.MarcoWell said Marco! Some of these so called "Hard core" sim pilots need to lighten up and get a dose of reality. Crashes are a part of life so I feel it should be simulated to an extent. Jason

[Dillon 2,197]

Although this is an interesting suggestion I have to agree with Randy on this. You can't have a civil simulator depicting pain on thousands of people. There's a few video games out there on the market that already glorify gang violence and violence against police. This does nothing to society as a whole and yet you have many groups that empathize with the reckless behavior by software developers.When looking at sims like TAW and Falcon4 I can see where you would expect better crash damage out Flight Simulator. Just remember FS is a GA simulator not a combat simulator. You