23 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

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?

And here is a F-15 that landed without a wing.  https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-pilot-landed-his-f-15-with-only-one-wing

So not all planes react the same to losing a wing.  And losing a wing is only one possible structural failure.  What about hard landings, or small wheels landing in soft sand? If the sim simply stops after a structural failure, then this and many other amazing landings are things I won't be able to try.

I want to try "bush" landings.  But if you can land anywhere without consequences, then what is the point?

If the simulator stops at certain limits, then it just isn't very realistic.

Are you worried what you will see or do, or are you trying to control what others see and do?

I think he's saying it doesn't add anything of value to the simulator to simulate crash dynamics. At the point the structure fails or the airplane is no longer flying, then you're just a passenger along for the ride. Besides being unpalatable to many folks--especially those of us who watched airplanes fly into buildings and kill thousands of people--it's also incompatable with licensing agreements. So if you like flying a Cessna instead of a "Trainer 172", or if you enjoy the ability to fly a Citation, or whatever your favorite branded airplane is, then it doesn't make sense to smash their IP to bits in a pile of flaming wreckage on YouTube. Then there's the ESRB rating to think about when you start depicting the virtual deaths of innocent passengers and passers by. 

You must know that your argument is pointless, right? They're not going to do it. And you're not going to convince more than a handful of people to agree with you. So why belabor the point?

I'm very, very much in favor of a Combat Sim version though. I'd love to see MSFS/CFS replace DCS. Then you can have all the mayhem you wish.

1 hour ago, GlideBy said:

Are you worried what you will see or do, or are you trying to control what others see and do?

Exactly.

Edit: This is, I believe why providing an option to turn damage on and off for those who object is not an acceptable compromise, since the objective in the end seems to be to preclude anyone having a choice.

Which is a slippery slope all on its own, in any number of ways.

 

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

40 minutes ago, Noodle said:

I think he's saying it doesn't add anything of value to the simulator to simulate crash dynamics. At the point the structure fails or the airplane is no longer flying, then you're just a passenger along for the ride. Besides being unpalatable to many folks--especially those of us who watched airplanes fly into buildings and kill thousands of people--it's also incompatable with licensing agreements. So if you like flying a Cessna instead of a "Trainer 172", or if you enjoy the ability to fly a Citation, or whatever your favorite branded airplane is, then it doesn't make sense to smash their IP to bits in a pile of flaming wreckage on YouTube. Then there's the ESRB rating to think about when you start depicting the virtual deaths of innocent passengers and passers by. 

I am not asking for that.  I have stated it many times.  I don't want explosion, flames, etc.  Please stop the strawman.

I am more than open to having a reasonable discussion of what I have talked about.  For example I have asked for hard landing to break the landing gear.  Is that too much?  Is a plane flipping when trying to land in soft sand or water too much?

3 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?

It's a valid point of view. I respect that. So should you.

Honestly, I think minors see much worse things on Youtube than an aircraft broken in two pieces without passengers in it.

So I would find it good to have a basic crash model. But I can also accept if ASOBO decides otherwise.

50 minutes ago, Noodle said:

I think he's saying it doesn't add anything of value to the simulator to simulate crash dynamics. At the point the structure fails or the airplane is no longer flying, then you're just a passenger along for the ride.

It's not about what happens after, it's what happens before to either avoid following scenario or cause it.

Let me phrase it differently:

I don't want to see a crash. I want to know that it can happen but I was able to avoid it.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by tweekz

6 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Honestly, I think minors see much worse things on Youtube than an aircraft broken in two pieces without passengers in it.

Try looking up GTA plane crashes. Several posts earlier I almost linked some examples of what kids see everyday, but honestly worried some adults here might become unglued.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

Just now, HiFlyer said:

Try looking up GTA plane crashes. Several posts earlier I almost linked some examples of what kids see everyday, but honestly worried some adults might become unglued.

Yeah, but then someone might argue that he won't let his kid play GTA. So just argue with Youtube. Noone can stop his kid looking up things on Youtube nowadays. So yeah...

1 minute ago, tweekz said:

It's not about what happens after, it's what happens before to either avoid following scenario or cause it.

There are many structural fails that are still flyable though, some that many would say, incorrectly, are impossible.  And several people have mentioned trying to land on the hudson.  Imagine as soon as it touches the water, no matter your angle, a message says "Crashed" because it just doesn't simulate that.

Yes you're right, it IS about preventing you from having a choice. The reasons are self-evident, some of which I listed in my post above. Licensing and ESRB rating are not things to be messed with. I don't want your desire to see broken wings, or landing gear, or perfectly recreated Miracle on the Hudson landings, or 9/11s to be the reason I have to fly generic airplanes, or the reason CNN goes out of it's way to vilify MSFS after mishaps (see 9/11 and MH370), or the reason airlines issue cease-and-desist letters to livery painters.

Is sinking a wheel in the grass, or a prop strike, tail strike, or belly landing ok? Yeah, I would think so. Flipping a floatplane by landing with the gear down? Sure. Cursory visual effects for engine fires? You betcha. Pretty much exactly what we got with FSX. But broken airplanes, missing wings, or visual destruction of the aircraft is an obvious non-starter.

I have spoken.

29 minutes ago, GlideBy said:

There are many structural fails that are still flyable though, some that many would say, incorrectly, are impossible.  And several people have mentioned trying to land on the hudson.  Imagine as soon as it touches the water, no matter your angle, a message says "Crashed" because it just doesn't simulate that.

Microsoft Flight didn't have a damage model, but it did have a very very nice Collision model, which meant you actually could clip trees and the plane would react accordingly.

In fact, all buildings and objects had Collision detection, and it was something that you had to take into account when flying low or Landing.

There was even Collision detection between the planes themselves, which could cause Mayhem in multiplayer when some of the more mischievous players would deliberately attempt a collision, which prompted the more experienced Flyers to Simply fly rings around them.

This also prompted people to become very proficient with the handling of their planes, so that they could attempt to land in unexpected places.

It was a lot of fun, and if anything I do miss the sense of fun that used to be a part of simming that has become so cold, dry and serious nowadays.

I do understand some people want the thrill of a realistic belly landing, a water ditching or some other spectacular emergency handling - and I accept that.

But remember the maxim of Asobo that what they do they do right. So if they start to correctly simulate things like that it will be a massive task to do it in a way that lives up to their own standards.

And all that for very little benefit, because I don't expect many users spend most of their time in the sim simulating emergencies.

 

I find it a lot more satisfying to end my flight with a smooth landing at my planned destination airport sharply on schedule with happy passengers than end up somewhere along the way in a wrecked up aircraft - even if I did a great job to make the best of it.

 

I mostly fly the FSL Airbus in P3D. The FSL is quite famous for the accurately modeled failures. It even has visual birdstrikes. It also allows a fairly realistic water ditching.

Did I work on the Hudson landing? Of course I did. I spent one evening on it, maybe 1 or 2 hours. Then it had lost its thrill. Compare that to 500+ hours I spend just flying from A to B.

Did I use the the failures simulation? Yes, once - and never again. I find it extremely frustrating to set up everything for a flight and then have to prematurely end it due to a failure right after takeoff - regardless of how realistic the failure or damage is simulated. I take more satisfaction from completing my flights as planned.

 

So after all I would prefer Asobo to spend their resources on other features first.

 

 

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by RALF9636

3 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

And all that for very little benefit, because I don't expect many users spend most of their time in the sim simulating emergencies.

Possibly because it's such a non event as currently depicted.

I would also point out that there are any number of things most users don't spend their time simulating that a lot of those advocating ignoring other users requests would sorely miss. I for instance, and probably would fall into a coma of boredom moving passengers around in the aircraft, but many people seem to find this interesting.

Does the fact that I do not give me the right to reject their requests? I would hate to be that guy.

5 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

I find it a lot more satisfying to end my flight with a smooth landing at my planned destination airport sharply on schedule with happy passengers than end up somewhere along the way in a wrecked up aircraft - even if I did a great job to make the best of it.

But that's how you use the sim. And to be fair, many others as well; but the hobby doesn't only belong to you and like minded people. Or at least I hope not. Out of the supposedly hundreds of thousands of people using flight simulators of one sort or another, I would like to believe that there are many ways to interface personally with the sim, and they they should all have equal validity.

I will always push back against some unknown person on the web deputizing themselves to decide for me, and I will always ask "By what authority?"

Sorry, not all ideas are valid or equal. Some are just dumb, like this thread.

I gave my students a tire failure on takeoff in the King Air sim so they'd know the difference in feel, sound, and vibration compared to an engine failure. On the subsequent engine failure prior to V1 profile, we had a runway excursion resulting in a gear collapse and the whole sim came to a stop at an awkward angle. That stuff was programmed in the sim because there was training value in having it there. The pilot is still "flying" the airplane throughout that sequence.

A different crew in a different sim session used a bit too much bank when decrabbing to land in a crosswind and either drug a wingtip or hit the propeller on the ground. Red screen of death. There's no training value in going along for the ride as you cartwheel down the runway, or as the shattered propeller blades penetrate the fuselage. You done messed up A-aron. Game over. Thanks for playing.

If you want a game that lets you "interface with the simulator" by destroying someone's intellectual property, then the MSFS franchise never was and never will be for you.

Push back all you want, it's futile.

11 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

But that's how you use the sim. And to be fair, many others as well; but the hobby doesn't only belong to you and like minded people. Or at least I hope not. Out of the supposedly hundreds of thousands of people using flight simulators of one sort or another, I would like to believe that there are many ways to interface personally with the sim, and they they should all have equal validity.

I will always push back against some unknown person on the web deputizing themselves to decide for me, and I will always ask "By what authority?"

I already said that I accept that some users like to have the damage and failures simulation.

You try to convince Asobo to spend their resources on that feature because you'd like to have it.

I try to convince Asobo to spend their resources on other features I like more.

That's all. We are both entitled to that to the same extent.

Asobo will know what to do anyway 😉

 

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by RALF9636