That's cool but I don't fly the big birds so didn't know that 😉

3 hours ago, SayAgain said:

To make one a better pilot, actions have consequences.

Having a wing fall off means what?  You crash.  Duh!  That is why I use scoring apps per flight. 

6 hours ago, Noel said:

Having a wing fall off means what?  You crash.  Duh! 

It’s damaged … depends on how hard it is hit, could be ripped off, could be just the tip, could left flap damage, could many things, could cause a fuel leak and imbalance the aircraft or set fire … hence damage physics.  “Fall off” would be mechanical, not pilot error.  You ever watch Ice Pilots?  Lots and lots of entertainment value and challenges with damage physics.

You might crash, you might not, you use skills to do whatever you can to perhaps survive.  The consequences are that you might think twice about an approach into a field/runway with tall trees and adjust accordingly … that’s the so what part … unless one wants to keep making the same mistake.

In P3D, A2A simulated flap damage, taught me to not put my flaps down too early.  And it was a challenge to land with a damage flap and a lot of “fun”.

 

On 9/29/2025 at 11:23 PM, Lucky38i said:

By replying to Abrams are you admitting that you’re one of those disruptors? I can’t imagine why you felt the need to reply specifically to that comment unless you personally felt like you were being called out. Which leads me to a single assertion.

Well ... I know that I'm regarded as disruptor in this forum, hence my statement 😛. But as I also said (several times), I'm holding the mirror. If one party can behave (I mean not accusing other people) then the other one also can, by simply not participating.

 

4 hours ago, SayAgain said:

In P3D, A2A simulated flap damage, taught me to not put my flaps down too early.  And it was a challenge to land with a damage flap and a lot of “fun”.

As we are comparing with this statement to other simulators - in the other "unnamed" 😛 simulator, every default plane can do that. No study level addon required.

Edited October 1, 2025Oct 1 by flying_carpet

It's 2025, yet some people still believe that "damage simulation" is just about wanting Hollywood special effects... Quite sad, to be honest.

Damage simulation would be a very valuable addition to the sim. Not just some stupid ON/CRASH switch.

26 minutes ago, Daube said:

It's 2025, yet some people still believe that "damage simulation" is just about wanting Hollywood special effects... Quite sad, to be honest.

Damage simulation would be a very valuable addition to the sim. Not just some stupid ON/CRASH switch.

Exactly this.

1 hour ago, Daube said:

Damage simulation would be a very valuable addition to the sim. Not just some stupid ON/CRASH switch.

It seems, the sim is not lacking so much as you are lacking insights. Please educate yourself here under the section "Note on collision damage / wear and tear":

flight_model.cfg - Additional Information

4 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

It seems, the sim is not lacking so much as you are lacking insights. Please educate yourself here under the section "Note on collision damage / wear and tear":

flight_model.cfg - Additional Information

I'm aware of that initial simulation but it's rather basic and still an ON/OFF switch, as it can be summarized as health points decreasing to zero until it's officially switching to "broken". Yes it's better than nothing, ok, but it's still far from the kind of damage that we were discussing, which also included visual damage.

From my side, I'm hoping for a damage system comparable to what we could see in the IL-2 sims for example (keeping weapons stuff aside).

11 hours ago, SayAgain said:

It’s damaged … depends on how hard it is hit, could be ripped off, could be just the tip, could left flap damage, could many things, could cause a fuel leak and imbalance the aircraft or set fire … hence damage physics.  “Fall off” would be mechanical, not pilot error.  You ever watch Ice Pilots?  Lots and lots of entertainment value and challenges with damage physics.

You might crash, you might not, you use skills to do whatever you can to perhaps survive.  The consequences are that you might think twice about an approach into a field/runway with tall trees and adjust accordingly … that’s the so what part … unless one wants to keep making the same mistake.

In P3D, A2A simulated flap damage, taught me to not put my flaps down too early.  And it was a challenge to land with a damage flap and a lot of “fun”.

 

I appreciate your perspective but as I see it, all of the coding to make this happen never comes into play until you breech protocol.  I don't put flaps down too early but that is because I'm paying attention which is where flying for score helps add consequences.  Simpler things like landing gear/flaps breaking because of ignoring protocol would be pretty easy to emulate perhaps.  But having small parts of the plane damaged would be a whole other challenge and again, way too much coding for how it would be used.  The lack of consequences for me is well addressed by using per flight scoring, ala both SLC and APL.  

I'm far more interested in making the entire Digital Twin more 'alive':  more fauna, trains, people, dogs, birds, etc.   If you're after aeronautical fidelity perhaps XP is a better option for you.  I just can't see MS/A wanting to code for what you're describing, beyond as I say loss of flaps or gear.   I would also love to see MS/A code for a sterling alternative to GSX as they could do it vastly better than is done currently, just my opinion, and hope  🤞

 

41 minutes ago, Noel said:

I appreciate your perspective but as I see it, all of the coding to make this happen never comes into play until you breech protocol.  I don't put flaps down too early but that is because I'm paying attention which is where flying for score helps add consequences.  Simpler things like landing gear/flaps breaking because of ignoring protocol would be pretty easy to emulate perhaps.  But having small parts of the plane damaged would be a whole other challenge and again, way too much coding for how it would be used.  The lack of consequences for me is well addressed by using per flight scoring, ala both SLC and APL.  

I'm far more interested in making the entire Digital Twin more 'alive':  more fauna, trains, people, dogs, birds, etc.   If you're after aeronautical fidelity perhaps XP is a better option for you.  I just can't see MS/A wanting to code for what you're describing, beyond as I say loss of flaps or gear.   I would also love to see MS/A code for a sterling alternative to GSX as they could do it vastly better than is done currently, just my opinion, and hope  🤞

 

I'm pretty sure the 3rd party developer can code all the damage they want, if they want to.  iniBuilds did it for the A350 for bird strikes.  It just means more code for the 3rd party developer to write, given that there may not be API functions in MSFS that directly support damage.

Pretty much, you can do anything you want in MSFS, as A2A have demonstrated. From my understanding, A2A is just using MSFS as an environment viewer.  All the physics go through A2A's own engine and flight model, and they bypass the MSFS flight model completely.  My guess is, A2A also reads the wind that hits the plane, and reads information from other variables around the plane, but it's the A2A engine in the end that decides on all the physics and how it impacts the plane, because they are bypassing the MSFS flight model.

 

28 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Pretty much, you can do anything you want in MSFS, as A2A have demonstrated.

Sounds great--for those who are interested in this type of thing use airplanes that model it.  Just not worth coding for every plane and every user it just is not going to come into play for the vast number of MSFS users.   In fact, it would likely be the Xbox users who want to see what happens when landing gear fails, or when a wing is knocked off.  Zero staying power for these features.

9 hours ago, Daube said:

It's 2025, yet some people still believe that "damage simulation" is just about wanting Hollywood special effects... Quite sad, to be honest.

Damage simulation would be a very valuable addition to the sim. Not just some stupid ON/CRASH switch.

Just curious...What kind of damage simulation you expect to see in civilian flight sim?

4 hours ago, Noel said:

   I would also love to see MS/A code for a sterling alternative to GSX as they could do it vastly better than is done currently, just my opinion, and hope  🤞

 

I sincerely don't think that they could. It would be in constant beta with each release breaking something else. 

6 hours ago, Noel said:

I'm far more interested in making the entire Digital Twin more 'alive':  more fauna, trains, people, dogs, birds, etc.

We have very different priorities.

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

What kind of damage simulation you expect to see in civilian flight sim?

The same type of damage and failures you get in the real world.  The list is long:

• Flat tire
• Collapsed gear
• Fuel leak
• Stuck elevator trim
• Broken rudder
• Cracked cockpit window (not just bird strikes, but rocks, significant debris etc.)
• Fuel contamination (very common)
• Oil leaks (engine and/or hydronic) starting a fire
• Electrical fires in cockpit filling cabin with smoke
• Landing lights going out or taken out with debris hit
• Prop strike
• passenger/cabin door pops off and is ripped off during flight (no I wasn’t on Alaska air flight, I missed it by one)
• And much more that is common in both commercial and GA.

All things that make flight a more realistic challenge and unpredictable.

This discussion makes me feel like, again, people are missing some of the point of a simulator.  The entire point is that it's NOT real, and therefore you're operating in a consequence-less environment.  That's the value.  It's a feature, not a bug.