Hmm. I don't plan on crashing anyway lol

 If I had to sum up this thread, I'd say that I see a consensus for modeling damages when they can have an effect to cope with/correct in the handling of the aircraft (in the air and on the ground) : gear failure, flaps failure, damaged prop, bird strikes, engine fire etc. Beyond that, that is to say terminal damages in the air or the ground, there are diverging opinions.

When FSX was ported to Steam by DTG, the first thing that happened was a flood of videos on YouTube showing people ruining  the multiplayer experience by flying aircraft in a ridiculous manner. And now some here are clamoring for realistic crash damage imagery. I can't wait to see those videos. But why stop at mechanical damage? Add blood, guts and scattered personal belongings to the mix. 

This reminds me of the thread on the DCS forum about adding nuclear weapons to the simulator. 

Edited January 23, 20206 yr by jabloomf1230

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

Hmm. I don't plan on crashing anyway lol

 

Nobody plans to. Lol!

5 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

When FSX was ported to Steam by DTG, the first thing that happened was a flood of videos on YouTube showing people ruining  the multiplayer experience by flying aircraft in a ridiculous manner. And now some here are clamoring for realistic crash damage imagery. I can't wait to see those videos. But why stop at mechanical damage? Add blood, guts and scattered personal belongings to the mix. 

This reminds me of the thread on the DCS forum about adding nuclear weapons to the simulator. 

 

Well no, people aren't clamouring for that. Apart from one individual who seems to favour the extreme of aircraft ending up in a smoking hole, the majority are simply asking for a degree of air frame damage that is relevant in terms of feedback. For example if you make a hard landing, then visual gear damage and even gear collapse. Bent props, engine fire and smoke etc. Most reasonable people hear aren't interested in extreme carnage... obviously.   

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Well no, people aren't clamouring for that. Apart from one individual who seems to favour the extreme of aircraft ending up in a smoking hole, the majority are simply asking for a degree of air frame damage that is relevant in terms of feedback. For example if you make a hard landing, then visual gear damage and even gear collapse. Bent props, engine fire and smoke etc. Most reasonable people hear aren't interested in extreme carnage... obviously.   

I second that. Some feedback like an engine that's running rough because of mismanagement, tire or gear failures because of hard landings and even some airframe damage because you made a bad choice in going through that storm instead of around.
Random failures that may force you to do a precautionary or emergency landing are actually practiced in professional simulators and not only does it break the routine, even if it doesn't occur, it teaches you to always expect to deal with something bad. If something does happen, it is gratifying to know that you kept a clear head and landed the aircraft safely. As long as it is realistic and survivable and I as a virtual pilot can make a difference to safely land the aircraft in a less then optimal situation.

Torn off wings or explosions are useless in that regard, because they can't teach you anything or don't give you the thrill of dealing with a problem and making the right choices.

Better yet. You do something stupid like run into a building, or try aerobatics in a 152. A message pops up in 72 pt Comic Sans MS .

 

"Bend over dufis"

24 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

You do something stupid like run into a building, or try aerobatics in a 152. 

Well, the 152 (Aerobat) isn't a bad aerobatics trainer. Even the standard 152 is certified for a few aerobatic maneuvers when staying within certain limits.

Edited January 23, 20206 yr by FDEdev

I'd be happy with anything with regard to collision modeling. Even the aircraft simply bouncing around on the ground would be a lot better than the sad freeze and "CRASH" message of FSX. Of course as others said some limited damage modeling like bent landing gear, bent prop and the likes would be welcomed.

In any case ASOBO said they completely rewritten from scratch the collision physics, so that's very promising.

On 1/22/2020 at 10:03 AM, Murmur said:

True, detailed crash modeling is not required in a "serious" sim (whatever that term could mean), just like 3D rivets, advanced sound and 1000 other things aren't required either.

But I'd love to have advanced crash physics where you can clip a wing when over-g'ing or colliding with a tree or crash and burn in a building or on the ground.

Just as you could in Flight Unlimited, in XP, in Aerofly FS1, in DCS, in GTA5 and in countless other games (with none of the consequences feared by some here).

So please Asobo, even if you can't do that for default aircrafts, give 3rd parties the SDK hooks to do that in their add-ons!

 

I think that for myself, it's about having palpable consequences for failure.

A screen saying "You crashed" is very dispassionate; an essentially empty acknowledgement that provides little emotional incentive for avoiding it, only technical.

For those who tend to approach simming largely from that same technical/training/button-pushing aspect, then this is probably fine.

For me, I kind of crave a more emotional component.

Seeing a plane clipping a tree and losing that wing is going to make me wince and go "Jeez, that was bad! Can't let that happen again!"

On the other hand, planes that go "Bonk" when they hit the ground, I'm just gonna hit reset (if that's necessary) and consequences will never be part of the equation since essentially, there are none.

I noticed this about me and games a long time ago. If I play a character and form no attachment to it, then that characters destruction becomes meaningless.

If you are or were involved in real aviation, you may already have some personal background/experiences that supply that emotional component, but for the vast majority, we are seeing some pixels go "Bonk" and there is zero visceral impact.

In a war sim, strangely enough, I think it's actually much more front-and center that there are human consequences to what you are doing if this was real.

Consequences not communicated by planes that go "bonk"

In fact, I have a suspicion that some large part of aversion to crashing is from the desire to avoid bringing any human emotion into the equation.

Who knows?

For me, this is mostly an intellectual conversation, since I don't think damage will be allowed. It goes against tradition, and opposition is very visceral, whereas those advocating for its inclusion do so from a position which is much more mildly suppositional.

Which pretty much means it's not gonna happen.

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Nobody plans to. Lol!

I believe a lot of people have done it just to see what happens, however I have never done that on purpose myself. 

 

1 hour ago, Casualcas said:

or try aerobatics in a 152

I’ve axially dune that, or should I say my instructor did it, a barrel roll, in a  Cessna 150 aerobat.

Well, apparently everyone here is perfect, and never ever crashes. Makes you wonder why professional real world pilots ever get in accidents 😉

No one's asking for blood and guts, like one previous poster insinuated. Full destruction modeling would in fact be most realistic,  but I again understand the sensibilities of those uncomfortable seeing civilian planes represented in such a manner (for some reason,  no one is as uncomfortable seeing military planes destroyed, as is seen in numerous sims). Whether damage modelling is fully implemented or not won't stop a steady stream of YouTube videos of planes crashing into things. There's no shortage of those on the internet, and it's not like they're particularly interesting to watch anyways.

The goal should be realism, though. Whenever I let a family member without flight experience try their hand at landing, they'll inevitably crash,  but a freeze screen is a rather unsatisfying indicator regarding the overall survivability of the crash. For instance, the Asiana 214 crash was a quite violent crash landing, but it was mostly survivable. It'd be interesting to see a representation of the plane sliding down the runway and skidding to a stop, rather than a freeze and reset.

Years back in FSX, I was flying either the default 737 or CRJ and decided to set control surface failures for ailerons, elevators and rudders. Even in ideal conditions, it took many many attempts, and I only managed to land the plane on a runway safely once using differential thrust. Most attempts ended catostrophically, but there were other instances where I crashed near the runway, but in a manner in which may or may not have resulted in the plane remaining intact. But there was simply no way of knowing.

Skimming trees in a bush plane, it'd be better to understand the actual effects of gear clipping the treetops, rather than (again) a freeze frame. Same in instances of forced landings. In War Thunder, when an engine fails away from a runway, I'll land the plane on streets or between trees. Sometimes the wing clips obstacles, but you see the effects of this and the resulting survivability of such a crash landing, rather than a full pause.

With that said, I'll leave a video here of damage modelling in Aerofly, which is by no means perfect, but at least it provides a more realistic feedback on impact and stress forces.

 

Edited January 23, 20206 yr by RioPilot

an easy way to slow down people who would intentionally crash their aircraft is to remove the aircraft from their sim and force them to re purchase it.  maybe even unintentional crash damage could be handled this way.

For me there is survivable (in terms of the aircraft) damage and non survivable damage.  Survivable damage is the stress damage that would build up and require you to fix things along the way.  Non survivable damage would be catastrophic events like wings being ripped off or anything resulting in the total loss of the plane.

I dont think non survivable damage needs any great graphic display but there should be something.

For me it goes to learning what not to do.  I'm not a real pilot and Ive been flying into thunderstorms for years in flight simulators.  Ive also probably been leaning my mixtures incorrectly.  I remember one sim I had where the book talked about how you needed to make sure you didnt lower the manifold pressure too quickly because you might crack an engine block which would cause the motor to freeze and you'd drop out of the sky like a brick.  It never happened to me...maybe because I treid to be real careful about that.  But thats what I want a sim to teach me.  It doesnt need to be overly graphic but it should aqt least be interesting.

One thing I dont want is unrealistic damage modelling like A2A who decided that an aileron should break simply because you did not do a walk around.  I find that unrealistic.  But there was another company (the one that sold the A36 -- I cant remember)...I tried to do a pushback and my brakes were still on and it damaged the tail assembly and I had to reset the plane.  some things are just neat touches.

Yesterday I was working on the KA-350i and I inadvertently let the starboard engine exceed N1 for too long and heard a loud 'bang.' Sure enough, I managed to incur catastrophic damage to the engine and it lost power. Good thing then I was still on the ramp!

2 hours ago, RioPilot said:

With that said, I'll leave a video here of damage modelling in Aerofly, which is by no means perfect, but at least it provides a more realistic feedback on impact and stress forces.

Maybe this is why Aerofly 2 has so few 3rd party developers. I suspect if PMDG developed for that platform they would disable crash damage visuals.

 

2 hours ago, RioPilot said:

No one's asking for blood and guts, like one previous poster insinuated

Of course. Everyone here is a serious flight simmer and maybe even a real world pilot. But this community is completely atypical of the target audience for MSFS. You want to send the wrong message to the developers? Keep asking for this feature. Now if MS or someone else wants to make a combat add-on, that's different. And maybe it will even have nuclear weapons included.