5 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I was actually wondering when some variation of the "resources" argument would turn up.  It's one of those time-honored red herrings that almost always eventually arrives in these conversations.

Along with absurdities designed to derail the subject...

I would just say that after the community has happily absorbed birds flying, ocean waves changing with the wind, walking zebras and elephants, moving cars, realistic grass etc, moving boats and more, suddenly becoming worried about resources when something one does not agree with comes along is (as always) a bit convenient.

 

Pity you turned off personnel messages. I just tried to send you one in appreciation of your  common sense. 😉

 

Absolutely true how others try to derail the debate by taking the concept to absurd levels, like dead bodies, blood and guts and nuclear weapons. Ridiculous! 

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by martin-w

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

Cool!

 

So I guess this establishes the parameters. Absolutely not, versus full on flaming destruction.

One would hope people could reach a reasonable compromise......

5 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Pity you turned off personnel messages. I just tried to send you one in appreciation of your  common sense. 😉

 

Absolutely true how others try to derail the debate by taking the concept to absurd levels, like dead bodies, blood and guts and nuclear weapons. Ridiculous! 

I don't recall ever changing those settings, and actually didn't even know we had them. Maybe it's a new default.

23 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I don't recall ever changing those settings, and actually didn't even know we had them. Maybe it's a new default.

 

Dunno, it just said HiFlyer does not accept messages. I was going to send you a million quid as well. Oh well, I guess I'll keep it. 😉

6 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I was actually wondering when some variation of the "resources" argument would turn up.  It's one of those time-honored red herrings that almost always eventually arrives in these conversations.

That seems ironic coming from you, the noble defender of the one flightsim that is missing just about every important feature. But to your point, every time a feature is added, the potential for bugs and incompatibilities increases. Why create more issues and work when the benefits are minimal.

I have no moral objection to adding visual damage to a combat war video game. If that's what those users want, play DCS. Or play Battlefield whatever. 

36 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

That seems ironic coming from you, the noble defender of the one flightsim that is missing just about every important feature.

I'm sure that meant something, but darned if i know what..... I did however note your persistent efforts to pull Aerofly into the fray and found them interesting.

36 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

But to your point, every time a feature is added, the potential for bugs and incompatibilities increases. Why create more issues and work when the benefits are minimal.

You could say that about every single feature of a sim. And then I would ask, who decides what's minimal? 

There's an old saying about one person's trash being another person's treasure........

Meanwhile, as I pointed out before, I would probably assign much more virtue to talk of potential bugs, resource arguments and etc if they were flatly applied across all circumstances and requests, rather than used as a scalpel only against specific features one disagrees with.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

I've said it before, but maybe now a bit more in depth. Microsoft and Asobo have just grazed the surface of this new sim with what they've shown us. We dont know what it will or won't have. I will not pass judgement until my hands are on the yoke, sort of speak

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

So I guess this establishes the parameters. Absolutely not, versus full on flaming destruction.

One would hope people could reach a reasonable compromise......

 

I'd like essential mechanical parts to be behave realistically, so that I can test my abilities to perform an emergency landing. So if I choose the right terrain and apply proper technique, my plane should stay relatively intact. Like with Sully on the Hudson, or that Airbus that recently landed in a corn field with only the engine breaking off. But it should also be possible that it breaks apart.

What I do not need, is drama. There doesn't need to be explosions, fire, or even casualties.

I think this would serve simulation as well as being morally acceptable.

3 minutes ago, tweekz said:

 

I'd like essential mechanical parts to be behave realistically, so that I can test my abilities to perform an emergency landing. So if I choose the right terrain and apply proper technique, my plane should stay relatively intact. Like with Sully on the Hudson, or that Airbus that recently landed in a corn field with only the engine breaking off. But it should also be possible that it breaks apart.

What I do not need, is drama. There doesn't need to be explosions, fire, or even casualties.

I think this would serve simulation as well as being morally acceptable.

Sully on the Hudson it's one of those things I think many people would like to try and replicate. Would I have the skill to bring it down without the plane breaking up? It would be an interesting challenge!

6 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Sully on the Hudson it's one of those things I think many people would like to try and replicate. Would I have the skill to bring it down without the plane breaking up? It would be an interesting challenge!

Exactly. And beside the challenge, to me this seems like a reasonable aspect of a flight simulation.

Could you do it again?
Sully: Wasn't once enough?

Source:

 

 

I personally do not want that this non combat simulator can be used (misused) by anyone to recreate detailed crashes with a fully simulated damage model! A flat tire or flying sparks on a successful belly landing on the runway is the maximum for me! No torn parts of the aircraft!
You are not alone in the world, because this simulator will also be used by minors! It can't be that hard to understand, can it?

2 hours ago, Andiroto said:

You are not alone in the world, because this simulator will also be used by minors! It can't be that hard to understand, can it?

I think of this as one of the older logical fallacies, in its attempt to appeal to emotion over reason.

Those minors, whose purity we would presumably be protecting, play GTA5 and other games that have likely cumulatively exposed them to far more exploding planes hitting the ground than we could even imagine. And in more detail than almost anyone here is advocating.

My 10 year old niece, who at some point in the week, probably spent some quality time shooting zombies in the face, would roll her eyes......

Those horses left the barn decades ago.

Heck, my nephews boy scout troop gave the kids uzi's to test, and it was all good clean American fun, preparing them for the military. (He left the boyscouts and ran directly to the marines)

If anything was going to disturb me, that would do it, because at least that was real, with real life and death consequences.

Wildly spinning pixels...... Not so much.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

What does an engine getting ripped off by a tree have to do with minors?  It is a simulator, we don't need cartoon physics for kids.  Kids play games with shooting and death, they play racing games with collisions, etc.  It is up to the parent to decide what is OK or not.  But don't try to limit what adults can do because you are worried "what about the children".  Study after study has shown that violent video games do not cause violence.  If you are worried about your kids, then don't let them play.  If you are worried about my kids, then that is not your concern.

Once again, we don't need explosions, fire, or bodies flying.  But if the plane does something that would damage a normal plane, then it should not keep going like a cartoon.

I want to try a barrel roll in a 747, but without realist physics it teaches me nothing.  I want to try miracle on the hudson, or the gimli glider, or other miraculous landings.  But without realist physics it is pointless and I learn nothing.  I want to fly into a storm to see if I can, but if the plane is indestructible, then it isn't realistic.  And isn't the point of a simulator is to learn and do things you normally couldn't in real life.  

 

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by GlideBy

16 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

I want to try a barrel roll in a 747, but without realist physics it teaches me nothing.

What has this to do with realistic or non-realistic physics?  If you severly overstress your 747 and e.g. loose a wing, what's the difference between the simulation stopping and the 747 spinning into ground after the structural failure?

If you haven't learned anything when the simulation stops because you have just destroyed your 747 in flight, I doubt that you would learn more if you would watch it spin into the ground. 

4 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

What has this to do with realistic or non-realistic physics?  If you severly overstress your 747 and e.g. loose a wing, what's the difference between the simulation stopping and the 747 spinning into ground after the structural failure?

If you haven't learned anything when the simulation stops because you have just destroyed your 747 in flight, I doubt that you would learn more if you would watch it spin into the ground. 

Because things aren't that black and white.

Take this flight for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006

A 747 which was inverted, and became heavily damaged due to stresses but not completely destroyed (though nearly so).

In P3D or FSX, such a thing would've resulted in a simple freeze screen, rather than an opportunity to recover a damaged aircraft. And if it does end up irrecoverable and spins to the ground, so be it. That serves as a clear visual indicator that the pilot mishandled the situation.

No different than car crashes in racing games, train derailments in train sims, or air combat crashes in air combat sims.

If Asobo has the opportunity and the resources to include damage modelling to the fullest extent possible without violating licensing agreements, then I see no reason why they shouldn't. In fact, I remain hopeful they will, since they plan to touch upon damage modelling in a future update. They've already exceeded many other expectations.