I think if you crash-the sim should permanently never run again-just like in real life... :-)Like Peter-I am against this.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Thanks guys I didn't factor in that this is a GA sim and therefore tragic events need not be glorified. Like Dillon said there's too much of that going on anyway. I was looking at this sim in comparison to other Flight Sim's on the market. Falcon 4.0 is for combat where as Flight Simulator is for General and Commercial Aviation.Thanks Randy, Dillon, and the rest of you guys...

>I'm sure most people would agree that a failure is a failure, regardless of what may have caused it.

Speaking of this-there was just a mid air collision in San Diego yesterday between a C172RG with a student and instructor-and a 182.Beyond being sickened by this tragic accident-a pit went in my stomach as a year ago I trained for CFI in San Diego in a C172RG-and flew many times over the area the collision happened. My first thought was that this could have been the plane I trained in along with my instructor. It turns out is was not-but my heart still goes out to these pilot's that were tragically killed. Now the media loves putting out this image of the burning Cessna-but do we really need this on a flight sim? http://www.10news.com/index.htmlhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

ChrisYou do touch on a point which is that the sim needs to be exciting but that can be done by making challenging weather scenarios or adventures.I even thought looking at the FSX Ski plane shots of having sims within a sim.Fly yourself to and land on a glasier in say the Alps and change the plane for a set of Skis.MS could model a Ski run in high detail so you could get a realistic downhill ski through forests to the base of the mountain.Or change the Ski for a hang glider and glide down?Even fly a racing team to a grand prix track in a business jet then drive a racing car around a modelled track.Peter

Let's see. I have a ten foot pole. Hmm. Nope, not long enough.

>Why not make his crash even more real ? he could get a mate to>smash him in the face with a Glass bottle at point of impact.>That would really be fun.Peter,I think you're being unreasonable. As I said above, I really, really don't think anyone is asking for a depiction of charred bodies on the side of a mountain, okay? Do you remember FS5, where the airplanes came apart and spun to earth in loose formation if you overstressed the aircraft? Was that a vile depiction of death and destruction meant to arouse people's morbid tendencies? I don't think so. I think it provided the player visual feedback of his mistake. And speaking strictly from a game play perspective, it also gave the player motivation to correctly fly his aircraft.Or, how about the WWI air-to-air combat mode that shipped with FSII? Was there a human being in that enemy bandit's cockpit?Personally, I think its highly unlikely that MS will implement any enhanced crash effects, so its probably a moot point, but suppose for a minute that they do. Do you think that it would be a user selectable option, thus allowing sensitive users to turn it off? I bet it would. So what's the harm?Nick

tdragger wrote:>Let's see. I have a ten foot pole. Hmm. Nope, not long>enough. Smartest one of the bunch! ;)Nick

Failures for aircraft should be modelled visually and programmatically (where there is a point to it so that something can be learnt) but not the end crash sequence (where there is no purpose and nothing can be learnt)We all know what the final result of such failures can be. Therefore all we should be interested in is how to stop or manage such failures.A nice smooth landing should be the result in the sim with a nice summary page showing how we handled it.

>Well 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.

Hi Peter,I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I think anyone who's in the industry has lost at least one friend under similar circumstances, I know I have. I can see why you feel so strongly about the subject, and I can hardly blame you for it.Just don't forget that not everyone has had the displeasure of such a negative experience, or feels as strongly about it as you do. The vast majority of people play FS as a GAME, and they do not attach the significance to it that we do.There's two sides to every coin.Nick

>Failures for aircraft should be modelled visually and>programmatically (where there is a point to it so that>something can be learnt) but not the end crash sequence (where>there is no purpose and nothing can be learnt)I second that. To me, this is a sim and if it means MS needs to divert resources (and it does) to add visual damage to reflect situations you cannot recover from (crashes etc) I rather they didn't. In a military sim, where you get hit by bullets, missiles or shrapnel, while flying birds that are built to sustain damage and keep flying, it makes sense having visual cues for damage assesment and game immersion. For a civil sim however, this feels like something I can live without.

>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.Well said Derek! Many times when practicing heavy crosswind landings I have touched the runway with a VSI reading between 500 to 1500 FPM in a Cessna 172 or sometimes larger aircraft. I'm still learning to land different aircrafts in heavy crosswinds. I think it would be appropriate to show a reasonable amount of damage on the landing gear or whatever other part of the plane is involved. One of the distinct advantages of a simulator is the ability to increase and test your skill levels. Such could be improved landing techniques to see an accurate representation of the damage on the airframe under certain conditions,etc. I really don't think people are interested in smashing up aircraft or running them into buildings to be entertained by it. It would be fine to have just enough realism so you can know what has been affected and try to remedy the situation in flight as you would in real life if you were involved in a minor colision. As much as we all hate it, aviation accidents do and will contunue to happen.Regards,Mark.

> >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>>>Well 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.> >> JasonDefinately 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!Regards,Mark.

>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.>>Good post. I agree.A bird strike and the hole in the windshield and the drag that hole would cause the plane to stall (at even its maximum thrust. A GA airplane here) would be terrific. But the pilot opens the door to let this incoming air out and he/she also side slips the aircraft to the max... then the aircraft should fly enough to put it in a cow pasture..and the pilot walks away. Now THAT is simulation!:)Manny