2 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

Asobo will know what to do anyway 😉

Well I certainly know what the safe thing to do would be, but if they were playing safe, they would never blow this amount of resources in a niche genre in the first place..... 

And they were also amenable to persuasion about VR, so It never hurts to ask.

And there is always the hope of user mods, as well as things like TacPack etc so.....

Edited January 25, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

10 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Seriously? Even in DCS it's the main target of the game to kill people by bombing or strafing them. If you are getting killed while doing that, bad luck.

Killing a few hundred passengers like Andreas Lubitz and other suicides is the same for you?

No it's not the same. Infact, if anything, I would find morally more objectionable playing a realistic combat software, faithfully recreating what happens in battlefields around the world, using real insignia etc, rather than having a little fun crashing a virtual airliner somewhere. Good riddance, it's a game, like BeamNG and the likes.

It does bother me to hear people going on and on about actual crash damage. I never want to see anything more than structural events that either end the flight or result in a forced landing. If you crash the airplane then it should be the same as FSX. 

I have witnessed people lose their lives in aircraft crashes and it is something you carry for the rest of your life. Some visions never dim nor disappear. I pray none of you ever share my experiences. 

 

There's an old saying that it takes all kinds to make a world.

It's a phrase emphasizing that people have different characters, opinions, abilities/beliefs etc, and that we should accept this (I've always thought) as a basic prerequisite to being able to live peaceably alongside one another in a civilized society.

What bothers me, is when we as a group with a shared interest (in this case, aviation) turn against ourselves by deciding that views/ideas we may personally disagree with for whatever reason not only have no merit, but should be actively suppressed.

I do understand some people's emotional reactions to the subject, and expressed that earlier but here too, we're all individuals.

I have in my life lost many friends to accidents (mostly car accidents) and even more because of being raised in a very rough neighborhood where us kids had distressingly low survival rates. The list of ways we contrived to leave the earth before reaching 18 are numerous and tragic.

But for me, the fact my best friend Marcy (who died in the car we had helped get for her so that she could go to school) while heart rending, had zero to do with fiery crashes in a racing/video game or my attitude towards same. The two events just couldn't ever exist for me on the same conceptual planet.

Individuals.

Some might disagree with that, and that's fine. I guess the difference in the end is that for me, basic politeness enjoins me to listen to others reasoning and respect their right to express their opinion as I would (and do) expect the same for myself.

(Well at least as long as I remain within the rules of the forum)

Its when we don't do that, that threads like this fall to confrontation rather than discussion.

We all have our reasons for how we feel. It's how we make room for each others feelings in the end, that defines our viability as a community.

Edited January 25, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

That's neat. Kumbaya and to each his own! 

But it doesn't change the facts regarding licensing and ESRB rating, which none of you advocates have bothered to address. It's always the same emotional speech and hand wringing.

When you figure out how to overcome those annoying little problems, be sure to let us know.

Thank you HighFlyer

No truer words on this topic

Actually, 188AHC spoke truer words. I'm surprised that this thread is still limping along, considering that visual crash damage is such a peripheral feature for a realistic  flightsim.  

1 hour ago, Noodle said:

But it doesn't change the facts regarding licensing and ESRB rating, which none of you advocates have bothered to address.

Because it's a moot point. Damage to a simulated air vehicle (which is an object, not a person) would not warrant a Teen+ rating, I'm fairly certain it would still be E for everyone. If I'm wrong on this point, let me know, but It really is a very tame thing in the grand scheme of things, that only seems to be heavily dismissed in a forum like this.

Should train simulators be rated Mature for such "violent" imagery as train derailments? Or boat sims for showing sinkings? Or truck sims for crashing? In Orbiter sim you can download a DGIV spacecraft which disintegrates when you make improper reentries.

The only emotional points made here are by those who fail to separate reality from make believe video games, an art form which older generations still seem to single out for moral judgments, unlike music and movies (of which contain numerous violent depictions of civilian air crashes). Just because someone is personally affected by something in reality doesn't give them the right to impose their beliefs on others, or dictate that we shouldn't even dare discuss a certain topic.

People get killed by gun violence and car crashes every day. Soldiers die overseas in violent deaths. Yet people would be rightfully perturbed by anyone suggesting that video games shouldn't be allowed to portray car crashes in racing games, or first person war-themed shooter games.

I'm not personally close to anyone involved in plane crashes, but I know of a few. Thankfully they survived. Without going into too much detail, I know of one crash in which people died flying into a storm. If we're going to make appeals to emotion, then I'd argue it's actually more prudent to demonstrate to simmers (many of whom go on to be actual pilots, like myself), the true risks of flight. Because no matter how safe airline travel is, flight will always be an inherently risky and unnatural act.

But more to the point, I believe we should at least be allowed to discuss this without being made to feel guilty by being reminded of abundently obvious tragic things, like 9/11, real world crashes, etc. It would be like reminding FPS gamers about Columbine or something, which I personally find to be in poorer taste.

But I digress. This is likely my last post on this subject, but I couldn't help but interject. I've lurked on these forums on and off for nearly 20 years, and whenever this topic comes up, it invariably gets put down by those with a holier than thou view of the matter. 

Ultimately, there are indeed more important things to address in the new sim, like VR (which I most want), as well as ATC and helicopters. Talk is cheap, and Asobo will ultimately decide to do what they feel is best. But I see zero harm in at least raising subjects like this to their attention.

 

Humans are the most dangers animal on the planet!  

 

7 hours ago, RioPilot said:

tl;dr

 

Realistic crash effects and destruction of civilian vehicles are considered under the "violence" category, and there is no requirement for the violence to be overtly lifelike. There are even categories for "cartoon violence" and "fantasy violence", so the separation of reality and simulation does nothing to ameliorate the rating issue. As an anecdote, back in the FSX beta days there was some back-and-forth concern regarding the ESRB rating because of some of the scenarios presented in the included missions.

Second, I didn't say plane crashes should earn a Mature rating. But if a Teen rating would cause Microsoft to lose $10 million dollars in sales, do you really think they'll go that route? You're making an emotional argument against a rational business decision.

Same with licensing. You mention train and truck simulators. Can you name a title in either genre in which you can graphically destroy branded assets? Wreck any CSX trains into trucks at crossings lately? Overturned and caught fire in any Kenworth trucks recently? No?

In yet another example of emotion ignoring reality, you want billion dollar companies to license the use of their extremely valuable trademarks, logos, likenesses, equipment, and infrastructure so that 14 year olds can post YouTube videos of those things broken, disabled, destroyed, or being used as weapons against other civil infrastructure?

You think that's going to happen?

What's moot is your emotional appeal. I k ow the difference between fantasy and reality. I can have a hearty chuckle at the wings breaking off a 747 when you pull 14 Gs. I'm not stupid. But it's not people like me you need to convince...it's billion dollar corporations. It turns out they don't share my sense of humor or perspective.

1 hour ago, Noodle said:

Realistic crash effects and destruction of civilian vehicles are considered under the "violence" category, and there is no requirement for the violence to be overtly lifelike.

BeamNG has the most realistic crash physics (compared to other videogames) and no ESRB rating.

In any case, it's already been said that manufactures of licensed default aircraft won't allow damage to be shown. But the fact that Asobo completely rewrote the collision physics, is very encouraging. If they've taken the effort to do that, it's likely that the new collision model can be exploited by addons.

3rd parties! Bring on torn wings, bend propellers and burning wreckage!

 

 

I think this has been answered and has run its course. 

I don't think we will see this in MSFS. So we must wait and see.