Hope that MS/Asobo consider also the little "intricacies of life":

 

- NAVAIDS could be fail due to technical reasons or maintenance

- bird strike, icing, mechanical failures, even smoke in cabin or passenger illness as default and not when I turn them on before I start my fllight. (Maybe the option to turn them off, but let them default on)

- someone mentioned wildlife on little gras strips - why not?

- cranes and other temporary obstacles - randomized

- wildfire and smoke affecting your flight/airport

- temporarily closed runways (only at big airports with multiple RWYs) or shortened

- RWY lights could fail

and so on

 

all in all that sounds like a system which makes the use of NOTAMS very important and would surely add much realism.

Of course, unlikely to see it in 2020, but maybe this would be implemented one day

 

As long as it can be turned off for all those who just want to fly, i'm very ok with it.

Yes this would be very welcome further down the line. If they are really going to work on this title for a decade (not just support it) they should be able to implement this at some point. 

Other interesting situations might be: 

- Runway closed due to emergency landing, where you can really see the plane with the slides deployed sitting on a runway
- Closed airport due to unusable runway so you have to go to your alternate airport (along with correctly colored tower beacon)
- Dust storms and volcanic eruptions 
- Animals on the runway (where appropriate)
- Striking air traffic controllers (they have a lot of experience on this subject in France 😉
- Airports closing because of weather conditions
- Runway disruption because of a drone
- Airspace closed because of event (US president visiting a city for example)
 

Icing is a different matter from the others, it seems to me. It is inherent to the weather system and I firmly expect to be part of the engine simulation (carb icing, jet flameout) and aerodynamics simulation (ice building on wings).

4 hours ago, domkle said:

Icing is a different matter from the others,

 

Yes and no. What I wanted to express with this thread is, that it needs some more points to complete flight simulation.

What we have currently is a nearly 100% predictable "flight" - beside some weather variants.

And indeed have some developers added icing, (random) failures, engine wear. This is some approach to overcome the "sterile" simulation experience. Its just about - if one starts to develop a new flightsim from scratch - it would be really cool to consider also such things, which are at least the daily job of a pilot.

I see different categories (a very subjective take !) : 

- icing which has to be part of the simulation (engine, wings) ;

- events which would be very welcome like closed runways due to sudden harsh weather conditions (storm cell moving in - requires an ATC) forcing a diversion, animals crossing the runway (the bush flyer in me) and  forcing a go around, runway lights failure (does that happen in real life ?) ;

- Mechanical failures, I really don't like the randomness here except for a rare bird strike. Wear and tear would be preferable with a persistent state ;

- Others, more anecdotical in nature IMHO. Do VOR have frequent failures BTW ?

51 minutes ago, domkle said:

Do VOR have frequent failures BTW ?

 

NOTAM EDDM from today as a quick example

A6275/19 NOTAMN Q) EDMM/QNVCT/IV/BO /AE/000/999/4811N01149E025 A) EDDM B) 1910220700 C) 1910221400 E) OTTERSBERG DVOR/DME OTT 112.30MHZ/CH70 DVOR PART ON MANT, DO NOT USE, FALSE INDICATIONS POSSIBLE

 

NOTAM EDDT (Berlin Tegel)

DUE TO MAINT OF TGL DVOR/DME THE FLW CHANGES TO MISSED APCH PROC OCCUR:

or

ILS RWY 26L DOWNGRADED TO CAT I (ICAO CLASSIFICATION I/T/1.

 

So, such changes are very frequent

Oh, and I do not say I'd like to have real NOTAMs be copied/present in the sim.

I would be very satisfied if we have such failures randomly generated and will get a "simulated NOTAM" then.

Should be not too difficult too implement 😉

Sick passenger😕, and disruptive or intoxicated passengers?😫

The vision could be different, and Asobo could implement all this randomness into the core sim.

It could be like a box, an option in the sim menu, which activates all these "probable events" all at once. (default "on" please 🙂 )

 

 

Default ON state would likely annoy some users. You can guarantee that they would not realise that failures were active, and then be unpleasantly surprised when a wing falls off as they perform stunts above New York.

Edited October 14, 20196 yr by Christopher Low

20 hours ago, guenseli said:

I would be very satisfied if we have such failures randomly generated and will get a "simulated NOTAM" then.

Should be not too difficult too implement 😉

I believe one of the devs mentioned there was an option to define the percentage probability of various failures.

2 hours ago, Noooch said:

The vision could be different, and Asobo could implement all this randomness into the core sim.

It could be like a box, an option in the sim menu, which activates all these "probable events" all at once. (default "on" please 🙂 )

 

 

Personally I would prefer a default of "Off" please. I strongly suspect the devs will take the same view as MFS is also targeted at people new to flight simulation.

14 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Default ON state would likely annoy some users.

 

12 minutes ago, SamYeager said:

Personally I would prefer a default of "Off" please.

Default off it is , no problem 😉