37 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

Historically, flight sim developers shy away from the kind of damage modeling you see in combat sims...

Strange really. I don't believe anyone expects or wants to see bodies or injuries, but the plane is a machine. In World of Tanks (an arcade-style multiplayer tank battle) the tanks "brew up" and become charred hulks in a convincing fashion. However, there are no remains of tank crews shown, not even in open topped gun tractors or artillery pieces. This is a good thing. In reality many tank crews died horribly....In fact the commander's voice over when you blow up usually says something along the lines of "it's over, Get out!" No screams or cries, quite respectful IMHO.

If I fail to recover a bounced MD-11 landing why shouldn't I have the possibility of having the main gear punch through the wing and have the plane flip on its back in pieces?

Having said that, I believe that damage modelling takes effort, especially if it's conditional damaging reacting to the environment; fly through a gap which is too narrow and the wings shear off etc.

Damage modeling could potentially be a licensing issue for manufacturers and airlines. They don’t like to see screenshots and videos of people crashing their products. Especially in the civil aviation side of things. 
 

I imagine YouTubers and twitch streamers destroying 747-8s for the views. Not a good look to Boeing.

I think this is usually the case with using real models cars and trucks in some games. 

Edited August 31, 20205 yr by Azapata87

31 minutes ago, Azapata87 said:

Damage modeling could potentially be a licensing issue for manufacturers and airlines. They don’t like to see screenshots and videos of people crashing their products. Especially in the civil aviation side of things.

That's a good point. I still think non-lethal damage like wing scrapes, blown tires and damaged landing gear for GA aircraft, or tail strikes for the heavies could be modeled without triggering the legal departments of the various aircraft manufacturers. That's pilot error stuff.

If we don't have that, then the sim is just giving us a pass from landings and even some takeoff scenarios that we'd never get away with in real life. That shifts things too much in the direction of "game" and not "simulation" for me. 

 

FYI MODERATOR:   

I also live in the U.S, but I do believe "bl__dy" may be very bad word for those all those living in Her Royal Highness's realm?😏

a game to some, simulator to others.

25 minutes ago, ajaybala said:

a game to some, simulator to others.

Depends on the mood  I'm in If vatsim 100% sim but sometimes it's just fun to goof off ::)

Edited August 31, 20205 yr by SirDan

Just now, SirDan said:

Depends on the mood  I'm in If vatsim 100% sim but sometimes it's just fun to goof off ::)

same here. but always in cockpit.

6 hours ago, SceneryFX said:

Game is amazing, but I still have some questions about the physics, and YES crashing / damage was enabled when I pulled this off...

 

 

It’s a simulator. Get it right. 
Although anyone who uses outside views probably is only used to playing kids games. 

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

That's a good point. I still think non-lethal damage like wing scrapes, blown tires and damaged landing gear for GA aircraft, or tail strikes for the heavies could be modeled without triggering the legal departments of the various aircraft manufacturers. That's pilot error stuff.

If we don't have that, then the sim is just giving us a pass from landings and even some takeoff scenarios that we'd never get away with in real life. That shifts things too much in the direction of "game" and not "simulation" for me. 

 

At the same time, I think this is supposedly why you don't see damage implemented in a lot of car racing games, because manufacturers don't want their precious vehicles depicted as having a scratch after you just slid into another car!

6 hours ago, overspeed3 said:

FYI MODERATOR:   

I also live in the U.S, but I do believe "bl__dy" may be very bad word for those all those living in Her Royal Highness's realm?😏

😄

Considering the word's (supposed) derivation I think Bill is more likely to be offended than 99% of British people.

9 hours ago, Paraffin said:

No, this is a legitimate issue. In flight training or any realistic flight sim, even a "home version, you want to know when you mess up.

 

In level D simulators, when you have a crash, the screen flashes red/black and freezes. 

We also don’t practise ditching (would do the checklist but not land on water) nor do we practise gear up landings etc. Completely pointless. 

The only people who want damage simulation - for some odd reason - is flight simmers. 

8 hours ago, Azapata87 said:

Damage modeling could potentially be a licensing issue for manufacturers and airlines. They don’t like to see screenshots and videos of people crashing their products. Especially in the civil aviation side of things. 
 

I imagine YouTubers and twitch streamers destroying 747-8s for the views. Not a good look to Boeing.

I think this is usually the case with using real models cars and trucks in some games. 

In this context , failures simulation mechanism might show them bad as well. I guess the reason is more complex code or specifications on material stress not be given openly by the manufacturers.

Aerodynamic is the important physics for this kind of "game" for me to play, not surface or damage modelling.

When I want some realistic "simulation" of such kind of physics, I would rather play BeamNG.

It would be ideal to have a omni-purpose physics for underwater, ground, airborne, space and etc., of course, but I don't think it's possible today.

10 hours ago, Paraffin said:

or the "Miracle on the Hudson" to see if you could do as well as Scully.

I didn't know Dana landed on the Hudson, which episode of X-Files was that in? 🤣

Just wait for the Majestic Dash 8 Q 400. Full failure modelling. If you land hard, your gear will collapse, on the relevant side. Not just a visual model, you can't taxi with damaged gear.

Time will tell. I will buy!