As far as nuclear weapons, Novalogic had those in F22 back when dinosaurs walked the earth.

As for interesting damage modelling, since our legacy sims are pretty much locked in amber in this regard, it's going to require creativity and a fresh perspective for anyone daring to be different.

 

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

6 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

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.

Aerofly FS2 does not have any visual damage simulation, only the old Aerofly FS, which was a simple spin off from the RC series.

That's the reason why the visual damage looks like on a RC plane.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by FDEdev

LOL. It least that makes sense to include in a sim.

If this sim is not realistic enough for some and the need of the "intellectual emotional kick" comes up again, watch some vids of "Besiege" on YT! 

This saves time for the devs and they can working on the new Aerodynamics!

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by Andiroto

I would like procedural plane destruction and fireballs.

2 hours ago, Andiroto said:

If this sim is not realistic enough for some and the need of the "intellectual emotional kick" comes up again, watch some vids of "Besiege" on YT! 

This saves time for the devs and they can working on the new Aerodynamics!

I was actually wondering when some variation of the "resources" argument would turn up.  It's one of those time-honored red herrings that almost always eventually arrives in these conversations.

Along with absurdities designed to derail the subject...

I would just say that after the community has happily absorbed birds flying, ocean waves changing with the wind, walking zebras and elephants, moving cars, realistic grass etc, moving boats and more, suddenly becoming worried about resources when something one does not agree with comes along is (as always) a bit convenient.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by HiFlyer

it is very important to have destruction physics based on speed and the terrain and concrete must be colidable not ghost, also cars for highway landing, it is important to see after wreck if the 🔥 reach the cockpit and to measure collateral damage. 

A black screen saying I crashed is a total disgrace and a boring thing.

23 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I was actually wondering when some variation of the "resources" argument would turn up. 

Suggest to read post #3 from a developers POV who knows what he's talking about.  https://www.aerofly.com/community/forum/index.php?thread/7609-damage-from-stress/

17 minutes ago, mpozzi said:

it is very important to have destruction physics based on speed and the terrain and concrete must be colidable not ghost, also cars for highway landing, it is important to see after wreck if the 🔥 reach the cockpit and to measure collateral damage. 

A black screen saying I crashed is a total disgrace and a boring thing.

I guess you could call this a double whammy. Reductio ad absurdum followed by a modified straw man.

7 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Suggest to read post #3 from a developers POV who knows what he's talking about.  https://www.aerofly.com/community/forum/index.php?thread/7609-damage-from-stress/

I don't see him saying no, simply that currently it might be difficult...... 

Honestly, I would accept a resources argument from them much more readily, as it's a known issue on everything they do.

Cool!

 

disgusting

3 hours ago, mpozzi said:

A black screen saying I crashed is a total disgrace and a boring thing.

It is a boring thing indeed, if you consider emergency landings part of the simulation. I don't need dramatic effects, but I would like feedback if I could've landed the aircraft Sully-style, or if it would have been tragic.

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by tweekz

1 hour ago, FDEdev said:

disgusting

See it this way then:

It's just a game, even MFS. Can't understand why the people opposing crash dynamics on "moral" grounds (?!?) are fine with military games and sims where bombing, strafing or killing are modeled in a much more realistic way.

13 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Can't understand why the people opposing crash dynamics on "moral" grounds (?!?) are fine with military games and sims where bombing, strafing or killing are modeled in a much more realistic way.

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?

Edited January 24, 20206 yr by FDEdev