For me, adding back in crash effects is in no way "about" deliberately crashing.  What it does do for me is add some more realistic "consequence" to systems failures and /or a pilot error.  I want to have that message reinforced for myself........ I didn't just "mess up" in a "game"...... were this REAL....... I just likely killed myself and/or others.

The crash effects are really about NOT crashing for me.

Some of the crash effects packages let you set the magnitude of the "crash" as is appropriate to the plane and the circumstances...which is nice.  A c172 can make a little smoke and dust, maybe a small flame, and a small depression in the ground or something..... and a "heavy" full of fuel...... well...... you get the picture.

best,

...................john


PS:  At least onece I have found myself in a "dire" situation and knowing I was really going down.... and doing everthing possible to avoid buildings and trying to desparately "park it" in an open area away from as many "virtual people" as possible.  Actually found myself sweating after the attempt to "survive" and to save "others".  Sometimes this sim is quite immersive.

Quote:


Great point, ruekesj. 

In fact, the same could be said for running a combat flight simulator in the same room with anyone who as been in actual combat or who lost someone in that situation.

best,

.............john

I really don't think someone can get traumatised from a simulator like FS9 or CFS.  

All this blame on games for people murdering others, blame games for stress, blame games for whatever else you think it should be blamed for.  I think the only things games can be blamed for is when you are really get stuck into a game but have to do something and you don't want to leave the game.  

Were we a murder free, stress free society before games.....

Simulator does not equal game.

I made this thread, so I just need to make my point clear, I dont  wish the plain could burst out in flames, just beacuse it is fun to watch, and crash my plain on purpose, but what the heck, when the plain eventually by accident crashes, there should be some flames, or smoke, or atleast the plain should slide on the ground, that would happen in reality wouldn`t it?

It would also add some depth to the game, sweating as hell just to make a good emergency landing.. it could happen with good pilot skillz that u actually managed to save the plane..

No flaming intended Subtle!  I was just giving my point of view.  If you want special effects go for it.

All,

    I don't unserstand this.  Granted, it sounds to me like Subtle is complaining about the "realizm" of his Flight Sim.  I enjoy a good fire ball too.  But not in real life.  That's why I chose a "simulator".  I don't want to spent another 50 bucks to destroy my plane, intentionally or not.  I don't see the need for two separate "games" to accomplish my desires.  I believe strongly in OPTIONS.  I want the ability to have the option of FS9 making a simple thud telling me I made a boo boo. I also want it to go BOOM!  If a thundering ball of flame isn't your thing, fine.  But it seems to me, Subtle is being ridiculed for wanting this "grand simulator of flight" to provide "childish" results.  I've been spending many, many hours learning CAD's and building aircraft. I've spent over $5000 building my Goflight Cockpit.  I have so much more fun taking that brand new aircraft and smashing it into a mountian or, dare I say, a building.  I have great respect for those who died in 9/11 and those who lost someone (myself included).  What I did find disrespectfull was Microsoft coming out with a patch to "remove" the towers.  Did they ever come out with patches for anything else?

So, what am I trying to say?  If Subtle wants explosions, fine, it's a game.  If I want to perform a flawless, by the book taxi and takeoff and then smash into something, fine its a "stimulating simulator".  If someone else wants to take advantage of the most realistic "simulator", fine, I'd considter them a "virtual professional"?

    It's seems to me like people are ganging up on Subtle for his desires, and I don't think anyone shoud be "shut down" for their beliefs.

  I hope I didn't overstep my bounderies or step on any toes.

    This is my opinion and I've spent the last 17yrs of my life keeping "Our" right to have it.

Most sincerely,

Joe

Quote:


Hmmmm

I know where you're coming from John but I still have to disagree with you and I'll try to explain why.

The FS progs are classified as games and if you see them that way OK. Maybe they started out that way but I happen to believe that over the years mainly because of the demands made by the users themselves, they have transcended mere computer gaming to become something of much greater value.

There is an enormous groundswell of users who are or were real flyers and for them the sims are a way of keeping in touch with that part of their lives, especially if for any reason they are unable to continue doing so in real life. I've had dozens and dozens of emails from all over the world about my Kai Tak scenery and I've been amazed how many have come from real life, often retired, pilots. This includes one ex-CX 707 jockey, who told me how the scenery took him right back to what was the best part of his life.

Also the hundreds of thousands of developers who devote, mostly voluntarily, a great part of their lives to creating addons of all kinds to make the sims more real also must see the progs in a particular way.

Now all of this makes M$ approach their flight simulator software development in what I think is a different way to, say, EA with it's Sports games and so on. This is not to say that M$ don't have a gamey approach - they have the Combat Flight Sims - but I for one have no interest in those whatsoever. Clearly the way M$ do those is quite different from the way they have done FS9, FS2002, FS2000 and so on.

Now if as users we change our stance and begin to let M$ think that OK, the flight sims are just games, that's what I think we will eventually get. But as it is, because most users see them as being 'serious' applications, it constantly encourages M$ to strive for new levels of 'true' realism and not just 'trashy' visual effects. A lot of people on the forum complain about ATC and say they switch it off. If they had got their way M$ would never have done it and the 'serious' users would have been the losers. This is just one of many examples of M$ going the extra mile which maybe they other wise might not have.

So there you are. That's why I think we DO have to draw a line. If third party developers want to create 'crash effect add-ons' and some people want to install em, that's fine by me. But I want - nay insist - that M$ continue devoting their programming horsepower to more worthwhile aspects of realism.

Many years ago I was lucky enough to get my hands on the British Caledonian (as it then was) DC10 simulator at Gatwick and shoot the Kai Tak Rwy 13 approach. If I'd crashed it, which I'm glad to say I didn't, I don't think I and the others on the 'flight deck' would have seen a display of smoke and flames, but I don't think our suspension of disbelief in the realism was any the worse for that.

I know, of course, that many forum members will disagree with all of this, especially a lot of the younger ones. But maybe a few others with the mellowness and wisdom of the years under their belts will find it easier to understand my point of view.

Roger