Can I confirm Aerosoft A333 Professional with P3D v5 doesn't support any form of failures? I use this as a study tool.

I've tried manually shutting an engine down and it doesn't seem to model that scenario at all. However there seems to be a huge number of add-ons available, and I make great use of FSiPanel for example, which one of the forum members very kindly made me aware of. I wondered if there may be something similar to simulate a bad day at the office?

30 minutes ago, Pete F said:

Can I confirm Aerosoft A333 Professional with P3D v5 doesn't support any form of failures? I use this as a study tool.

I don't use that particular software, so I can't confirm specifics, but in the past, it was common for developers not to model failures because the aircraft manufacturers did not like it. I believe there were cases where developers were warned off by the manufacturer, and others where providing information was conditional on not modelling failures. I have always found this frustrating when trying to practice realistic procedures. Even where failures can be fudged, they do not usually produce real world reactions.

John,

I've worked a great many of the addon projects in flight sim over a great many years, including two study level (I don't like that term) aircraft, the Leonardo MD-80 and Majestic Dash 8 Q400, and I've never once heard so much as a peep about manufacturers not caring for failures being modeled.  In fact, I've never heard a flight sim user say that, except for your post my friend.

I suppose someone, somewhere can always say they heard from a guy, who heard from a guy, who heard from a gal (not to leave them out) that someone might have said "don't you dare model failures or we won't give you technical information that we already don't provide you with", all I'm saying is that this is a first for my in over 30 years in our hobby.

Best wishes my friend.

 

8 hours ago, Pete F said:

Can I confirm Aerosoft A333 Professional with P3D v5 doesn't support any form of failures?

Do the P3D programmable failures options work for that aircraft ?

Do any of the various Aerosoft Airbus support failures ?

I'm interested too because flying without consequences can be fairly boring.

As to various other tubeliners, I have iFly & PMDG, however I don't fly them as much as other planes, but maybe someone with more experience in flying the tubliners can kick in.

8 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

it was common for developers not to model failures because the aircraft manufacturers did not like it

As to the above statement, there are many aircraft with failures built in, e.g. for the Majestic Dash 8 Q400 the PRO version and above supports custom & random failures.

http://majesticsoftware.com/mjc8q400/products.html

Below are a few pics from various different aircraft failures I've had occur.

A2A's fail all the time if not maintained, Ant's Airplanes also exhibit the same sort of failures, Realair and Vertex break if misstreated, Milviz are the same for most of their aircraft, even various Carenado aircraft will exhibit failures if not correctly managed - I had the Cessna-Reims F406 Caravan II unexpectedly drop an engine on me just yesterday while in takeoff climb, quite the thrilling experience to recover and get back onto the ground safely 🙂

Cheers

 

 

Yes I must admit I find the suggestion aircraft manufacturers don't like it is a tad hard to believe, particularly for P3D, which is specifically intended for "Simulation, Training and Learning" under the terms of our licence. Our procedures trainers we use in pilot training also accurately model failures to the limits of their design.

My recollection was this was an Aerosoft limitation, and failures were simply not modelled in, however that's just more of what Dave was alluding to. Covering the full suite of ECAM failures would be difficult I'd imagine, especially if they affected aircraft performance. But many of the more common ones could likely be easily modelled. The other issue is the aircraft's software changes, so another layer of complication.

I don't know how these various layers of Add-ons work within the P3D engine; I don't write the music, I just play it. However there is definitely a market for training and study software that sits below the level of Full Flight Sims and can free the Full Motion Sims to do what they do best. Indeed there may already be some form of Add-on etc available for the Aerosoft A330 that may help bridge that gap, hence the reason for my post.

33 minutes ago, Pete F said:

My recollection was this was an Aerosoft limitation, and failures were simply not modelled

Yep, found info when searching the Aerosoft forums.

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/146408-please-add-failures/

Also found this on FSLabs Forum, perhaps FSLabs is more what you need ?

https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/topic/27000-how-is-fslabs-a320-when-it-comes-to-failures/

 

For simple aircraft exists a couple of addon mods for wear & tear.

However I've found these have been FSX builds, and required fairly extensive work to migrate over to 64bit.

Still, I managed to overhaul and trial one in the Flight-Replicas.com SuperCub P3D v5 (purely engine based) and a different one in a migration of the FSX C172 where engine and AP servo etc. are provided with wear and tear.

Both ended up doing the job albet within the limits of my xml coding ability - which is not at the level of a pro developer.

Cheers

1 hour ago, Rogen said:

Yep, found info when searching the Aerosoft forums.

https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/146408-please-add-failures/

Also found this on FSLabs Forum, perhaps FSLabs is more what you need ?

https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/topic/27000-how-is-fslabs-a320-when-it-comes-to-failures/

 

I believe the A320 has a few more options available in terms of available aircraft. Both links were in relation to the A320, however it's the A330 I fly.

As an aside, I'm not sure if the comment in that link about broken toilets being our biggest issue came from a developer, but I certainly hope not!

What is true is it would be difficult to simulate ALL possible failures. However it may be possible to simulate the more commonly trained failures (eg engine failures)

In regard the cost, I'm not sure the assumption a developer would "lose money" on this feature as valid. Pilot training is a very topical area within the industry at the moment, with technology like this extremely affordable, particularly when comparing to the cost of running full-motion simulators for airlines and training providers. There's no reason those same developments shouldn't trickle down and out to the general public, as that's the P3D model.

Back on topic, the RealTurb add-on would be highly useful if it can simulate windshear with the A330 Pro model. While not a "failure" per se, it's definitely something we train for extensively and would be a useful tool to have available. I'm interested if anyone has any experience with that.

7 hours ago, DaveCT2003 said:

John,

I've worked a great many of the addon projects in flight sim over a great many years, including two study level (I don't like that term) aircraft, the Leonardo MD-80 and Majestic Dash 8 Q400, and I've never once heard so much as a peep about manufacturers not caring for failures being modeled.  In fact, I've never heard a flight sim user say that, except for your post my friend.

I suppose someone, somewhere can always say they heard from a guy, who heard from a guy, who heard from a gal (not to leave them out) that someone might have said "don't you dare model failures or we won't give you technical information that we already don't provide you with", all I'm saying is that this is a first for my in over 30 years in our hobby.

Best wishes my friend.

 

Considering that a full range of failure options is required for commercial full motion simulators, I would be very surprised if any aircraft manufacturers would be at all bothered about this being provided on home PCs.

11 hours ago, DaveCT2003 said:

John,

I've worked a great many of the addon projects in flight sim over a great many years, including two study level (I don't like that term) aircraft, the Leonardo MD-80 and Majestic Dash 8 Q400, and I've never once heard so much as a peep about manufacturers not caring for failures being modeled.  In fact, I've never heard a flight sim user say that, except for your post my friend.

I suppose someone, somewhere can always say they heard from a guy, who heard from a guy, who heard from a gal (not to leave them out) that someone might have said "don't you dare model failures or we won't give you technical information that we already don't provide you with", all I'm saying is that this is a first for my in over 30 years in our hobby.

Best wishes my friend.

 

When Hans Hartmann was speaking on the MSFS developers stream when the ATR was launched he said that ATR did not want failures to be included as it may create a bad impression with potential customers (or words to that effect). In all other respects ATR were and are very supportive.