Probably not, for this reason;
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=fs2000;action=display;num=...

MS decided to take it out after 9/11.

Quote:


Well, I would have thought the aim wasn't to crash personally, so I can't really see the point in wasting time developing crash effects to give some people cheap thrills...

Aircraft crashes are so random it would be impossible to accurately recreate an effect properly anyway...

I think that acurate plane crupling and bits falling off can be achived as it works fine in IL-2 Sturmovik.  I also hate crashing at the end of a 2hr flight but sometimes I just fly the planes to break them and some nice spectacular crashes  would make my personal experiance alot better.

Quote:


Fair enough. I wouldn't go that far, but what would be nice would be prop bending effects, undercarriage failures etc on landings....

Quote:


There are payware programs for it. Silly I think..

Freeware;
http://www.simviation.com/fs2004misc1.htm
http://www.simviation.com/fs2004misc2.htm

Payware;
http://www.simviation.com/fs2004misc3.htm
http://www.simviation.com/fs2004misc6.htm

Quote:

So its the same as FS2002. A very simple CFG edit will get you visual damage for aircraft.

Quote:


If you can tell me I like to know how to do it!!!

i agree  some simple crash effects would be nice  it would help you make better landings by assessing the landing and seeing what you did wrong   explosions NEVER as in the one post mentioned above  it allows some people to have joy in recreating a trerible event like 9/11

If you play a game involving heads being blown off you expect to see blood and guts all over the place. But it's a game - for juveniles or those with a juvenile outlook - to play. Personally that kind of thing holds no interest for me and I suspect for a majority, or at least a sizable minority, of the people who are into fs.

The FS series are something a bit different. Firstly they have the word 'simulator' in the name unlike most, indeed almost all, of the fly and shoot-em-up games (the only ones that do have are the CFS series and they don't have crash effects of the kind some people are wanting either).

Let's put aside that real, full-size aircraft simulators don't have lurid crash effects, let's think in a slightly more mature way about what actually happens when an aircraft crashes. Mostly, bodies are subjected to enormous G loads, they disintegrate so body parts are found all around the crash scene, in tree branches, on any buildings that are left standing and so on. Almost whole bodies are found still strapped in seats often very badly mutilated and charred and personal effects and luggage are scattered over a wide area.

If you want it 'as real as it gets', is this what you want to simulate? If so you have my sincerest sympathy - and I suggest you go get some help.

There are already too many computer programs around that pander to the lowest instincts of the 'humans' who use them. As barriers have been pushed back, the content of such programs has had to become more and more extreme in order to be 'different' but by doing so all it has done is debase the people who use them.

God forbid if this ever happened with FS. It seems that MS has noticed that the cranks who want military aircraft and weapons in FS are the same ones who call for lurid crash effects and goodness knows what else and have said that it will never happen.

Thank goodness.

I would love to see landing gear failures (damage).  I think that's something that would be challenging and realistic.  Especially with the recently covered gear failures on TV.  Executing emergency landings should show some damage from either landing on the belly, striking a wing or striking a prop.  But nothing catastropic. Something that compliments the simulation, not making it a cheesy game.

Another example would be damage from bird strikes.  Looking back and seeing the damage from a bird in the engine would pretty simple to do, but would really add the the realism of the emergency.  In real life, there is no banner that comes up that will say BIRD STRIKE.  Just engine goes dead along with some noise.  I would really like to practice procedures for when such an emergency happens, and being able to look back and see a damaged engine would, IMO, enhance the realism.

Quote:



In real life, most pilots of modern jets (737 and up) do not notice that they have had a bird down the intake. It is chewed up and spat out. It happens so quickly that unless you happened to be looking at the gauges, you would probably not see it. In my experience, unless the engine takes a flock of birds, it is not, 90% of the time seen until the pilot does his walk around. Then I have to go into rubber glove mode ??? Most of the time, the only strikes that a pilot reports is a "thump" in the nose area, with the report of "I think we hit a bird". A visual inspection will generally show what looks like a large insect that would appear on your car windscreen, but bigger. When a bird hits an aircraft, it is practically turned to dust. What’s left is freeze dried to the airframe.
Last summer, I had to clean up an aircraft (737) that flew through a flock of starlings on approach. The aircraft was covered in large blood spatters. The engines had "eaten" a fair amount of said birds, however after the inspection it was found that not one had entered the core engine. The centrifugal force throws the remains outward, thus leaving the engine by the fan bypass. Another example, also last summer, one of our aircraft ingested a mouse buzzard as thrust reverse was applied. A mouse buzzard in no small bird, about 2 feet in height. Not a single bit of that bird entered the core engine. It was all ejected out of the reverser cascades. Another rubber glove moment:'(. The pilots reported on both occasions that engine parameters remained normal. The pilot of the buzzard aircraft had not noticed. It was seen because of a crew change. The new pilot was doing his walk around as the PAX where leaving the aircraft. 


Matt 

Quote:


When a plane ploughs into a mountainside or building, do you get a whole plane, stuck in the ground?

There's nothing wrong with prop bending and undercarriage collapses. In fact, there's something wrong by not having undercarriage collapses. You don't just stop on the runway and reset the flight. You skid along, fighting to keep the plane in one shape. It's just another challenge that could be in the game, with no morbid effects.

I like how crashes are done in FS9.  No need to change 'em.  I was going to say that it would be nice to actually SEE a gear failure, but in real life you can't see failed landing gear anyway unless you put a window in the bottom of the plane.  FS9 does model failed gear (land too hard on the front gear and that front gear goes away as if it were never lowered).

It's also possible to land a plane in FS9 with gear up or missing and not have it simply pause and say "crash".  You just have to do it gently.  The plane skids and slides and if you're gentle enough doesn't crash.  If the prop strikes the ground it stops.  Although it doesn't bend (and I don't think a bent prop would be all that impressive an effect).

So I think it's just fine.  If I crash I just want to know that I crashed.  Perhaps have some terminal flight info (rate of decent upon crash, max G force for overstress, something like that so I can decide what the magnitude of my error was).  No need for a big fire ball with burning bodies crisping in the wreckage.  That would take away from the experience for me.

Another option: make crashes actually harmful so people will be less inclined to crash.  Every time you crash your hard drive gets reformatted.  Or perhaps to play the game you need to input a credit card number and a crash results in the cost of the event being charged to your account. 

Quote:



That is a bit harsh! What definds a competent sim pilot and who is to say who is and who is not?
It is a simulation, as in, not real, regardless of what it says on the box. 

Matt

Quote:


I'm sorry if I seem like a 'game freak' to you, but I'm not some lunatic who only wants to crash planes into the ground and watch them explode. I never once said that, or even hinted at it. Unless you find a bent prop too distressing, I'm sure what I (and a few others) suggested, is not that big a deal.

I don't enjoy crashing, I enjoy flying, and I sure as hell am not an "incompetent sim pilot". I'm sure that every single pilot (real, or sim) who has had any sort of system failure must be incompetent, too. Ever seen a real pilot land with the nose wheel retracted, just because he wasn't up to the job?
I don't enjoy carrying out every procedure a real pilot does before even taxying out to the runway, though I do like to fly in a realistic envioronment, where the plane acts like it would do in real life, if I was sitting behind the controls. I do not treat Flight Simulator as a game.

Guys, what I'm saying is that it's ok to have SOME damage effects which can be used to teach simmers like us on what happens if:

1. you are not careful when you apply too much brake. Result: Tires pop and ground steering is lost.

2. you go too fast on an approach with landing gears down. Result: The gears blow out.

3. you forget to retract the flaps and your traveling faster than the flap's design. Result: Flaps will blow out like the landing gears.

It's ok to have those effects if you only intend to use it for educational purposes [like trying to earn your Private Pilot Liscense].

HOWEVER, it is NOT ok to see beautiful works of art like Bill Lyon's Tripacer go up in flames, NOR is it a good idea to see a 737 plow right into the dirt.

Notice, that the three scenerios described above are emergency-related.

Quote:


It is not proper to crash an F-16 into the ground at mach2 ignoring ATC, so, by that rational, providing we are following ATC, we can crash at mach 2.
I think that this thread is getting a little out of hand. Whilst I agree that we do not want bits of aircraft flying all over the place with accompanying fire balls, gentlemen, may I remind you that we are talking about some cleverly organised pixels here, I add, done by some very clever people.. There are no pax on our aircraft, no one dies. Microsoft did not require anyone to sign on the dotted line about how he/she would use FS. Incompetent sim pilots do not exist. It is not real, it does not matter what it says on the box. Collectively, apart from those of us who use FS as a training aid, we are a bunch to people who sit in front of a computer PRETENDING to be pilots. As for things (if they must!!) going up in flames and destroying someones work....it’s a simulation in a computer......reset.
Also there is a lot of name calling in a few threads recently.
Let’s lighten up a bit.

Matt

Quote:


Takeing my statement a little to literal arnt we read a little more carfully next time and dont take so litterally beacuse that is NOT what i was implying at all

yes its not real but its the idea behind the whole thing. wanting M$ or developers to add crash damage to a simulation just so we can get some eye candy is not a good thing. Also many of us "pretending" to be pilots are real pilots that cant take 2 hour flights every day when we want,  and then others like me, who are not able to afford flight lessons, use this as a way to relax or find out if we want to become real pilots and see what it is like.  But for the explosions  there are games MADE for that   so we dont need to add this thing into FS. Yes it isent real, so the crashes arnt real, so no need for relistic expolsions and crash effects to allow those who want a little destruction in fs. Though i do agree that some dammage to undercarrage or props would be a nice addon so that we can SEE what we did wrong, a simple "crash" isnt very descriptive now is it. so if you want better crash effects   make them yourself or buy another game.

as for the name calling  yes it has gotten more common and it needs to stop.

Quote:


Quote:


Both of them would be an excellent addition to the sim. Rather like in FSPassengers where you call an emergency.

But like I've said before, these things should be toggleable. If you don't like it, turn it off. It's as simple as that. It's better to have it, have some that use it, and other's that don't, than not have it at all.

Quote:


My point(s) exactly

It's very sad that people still prefer to live in a closed cocoon than just accept the real world. What I'm about to say isn't meant to offend anyone and as everyone I also condemn and was in great shock with the events of 9.11, but:

It did happen and there's no point in trying to hide it...

The fact that fs9 has crash effects or not, shouldn't be pending of what people feel about 9.11!! that was a horrible day in world history, but what we're talking here is about a game, or simulator (as you prefer), that is trying to recreate how real life planes behave.

With that in mind, crash effects, (and not special effects) should be present! Bent propelers, damaged wings, loosing part of elevators, etc, etc,etc...

this are things that can happen in real world and that can make a landing or flight quite chalanging! It has nothing to do with people wnating to crash on purpose!  I hate, when I try a belly landing and the sim gives me the crash line, no matter how I land!!!!

Also, not everyone flys exclusively big planes. I like to fly military planes and so, bird strikes are quite a factor, as are other things.

My point is that just because people want crash effects and want to try landing a plane with just one weel, or with the elevator broken, or whatever, that doesn't make them weirdos!

It's sad that big corporations became so self censoring!

The latest example is google wich since yesterday has a special chinese google version wich has millions of pages cutted so that no offensive material to the chinese government appears...

I hope that in the world we have today, people can keep things balanced and not rush into a self censoring rampage of trying to hide all the bad things of the world!!

Sorry for the long post, and sorry if I offended anyone, it was not my intention!

cheers

Quote:


Boy, if he's evil for crashing an F16 then I must be Satan for flying fully loaded 747's under bridges and playing slaolm in Midtown Manhattan with the Extra.  Those flights don't always end well.

Although I agree that these are cheap thrills I wouldn't go so far to say that I'm not a good person because I decide I need a break from the monotony every now and then.

Damge, eh?
Well, I believe that FS should definately NOT have things like explosions, aircraft being completely destroyed etc. Small damage effects, like a bent prop, a damged wheel/landing gear column and smoke seeping from an engine would be good, not too much damage effects, but not too little.

I say "...would be good.....", but then any damage of any kind to an aircraft is not good, I mean "good" in the sense of "slightly more realism" if that makes any sense. (I tend to explain things confusingly.... )

Quote:


IL-2 planes dont crumple....the closes thing to that is the propeller tips bending, and that was implemented in CFS3...all the other damages in IL-2 are just textures and breaking components, just like CFS1, CFS2, CFS3...

Yeh i agree, anyway hes obviously a little kid and doesnt understand what he is saying, wouldnt go reading to much into it...

All the information that we have about FSX is a very short press release and a couple of screen shots, and what has it produced.........name calling, bickering and a lot of people not exactly showing the SimV spirit. FSX is still almost a year away........Still time to desend a little lower in this forum perhaps.

Matt

And if I was not about to hit night shift, I would too.......about an inch in the glass with a bit of ice

Matt

Nobody was saying they were wanting fireballs and bodies strewn everywhere when they crash (that would cause most people to turn crash effects off, because i dont really want to see people lieing everywhere even if it is only a simulation) but its hardly "as real as it gets" if you land too hard and only your nosewheel breaks (what about the rear wheels and props etc)
And if you don't want new effects etc nobodys forcing you to buy it, but whats the point ms just re realising fs9 with nothing new but naming it fsx, would you buy it ??? Im sure people yhave been complaining about something or other being included or not on almost every fs release but you need at least simple damage effects (i hate crashing in fs but i hate it even more when the plane justs sits stuck in the ground and says crash on the screen in red leters, thats just not real to me) again im not asking for explosions etc but it could definately do with some damage effects e.g. blown tires, engine failures due to mistreatment, flaps blow out, maybe even a small part of the aircraft falling off because it was over stressed (nothing major but something that would make it harder to fly so that it discourages people not to crash)
And to the people that say milton shaupe and bill lyons and all the other developers out there would hate it if their planes were crashed in fs, how do you know, maybe they would be glad that someone was flying them even if they do accidentally damage it, accidents happen in real life and aircraft are damaged but perhaps people just want to ignore that and pretend accidents never happen.

Sorry if ive offended anyone but im only expressing my opinion here.
(I don't know these designers so im not saying they DO think that, im saying they MIGHT)

Bent props and stuff.... WOP B-17...

Failing engines and all kind off failures.. HNAC Airbus (a-300 I think)

I don't need crash effects and such.... Why? I Crashing is the last thing I want to do....Why be rewarded for it with spectacular crashing effects?

it's ridiculous that people treat this question as being of national importance or something like it!! Do crash happens in real world?yes! Do flaps, props, elevators, geras, etc bent and break in real world? yes! So MS should have them also! It's part of flyiong, if you land too hard your gears make break, if you lower your flaps while being too fast, they can break, etc!!

In the past years, computer companies are just becoming ridiculous in how much "clean" they want to be! Nowadays, you have car games where the cars never get any visuak damage because car companies don't allow it, simply because they don't want customers to see their products damaged!!!

This is simply stupid!! We're talking about games! g-a-m-e-s!!! Not real life, if people can't make the distinction, they should get medical help!!!

Thankfully some teams still do the right thing and give us the real deal.

Toca Racing Driver 3 is coming out, and do you know one of their biggest and more publicized acomplishments? The real time damage engine!! The cars will break as real life cars would! While it makes no difirence if you have a huge shunt and the car wont work anymore, it does make a big diference if you have a small clash with another oponent and it bents your suspensions, or the axle or whatever!!

Now, if we followed the same logic people are trying to use not to have a/c damage in fsx, we could say that having damage in the cars, would be an insult to the families of every driver that has died in motorracing in the last 100 years!

Also, the is a great sim coming up called thunder something (don't remember the full name) wich is based in the malvines conflict in the early 80s! Now, english people might see no prblm in this, but argentinean people could say that this is an insult to them!

And what about incocent people from sumalia in the delta force blackhawk dwn? and the inocent that died in ally bombing over germany? people that probably didn't even liked hitler and were against him, but they died in the bombings!!!! They could argue that games like il2. cfs series, etc could insult the memories of thei relatives!!

All this oculd be done, but would it be sane and right? I don't think so, games are games, and people should look at them like they are!

We have to stop this world paranoya of just portraying the right thing! Bad things happen in the world and we should not try to hide them or to make them not look as bad! It's like we're getting back to the 50s where in the US every family was portrayed as a perfect family and only good things happened! do we need another 60s revolution so that people again face the world as it is?

Sorry for the long post, but I'm very worried about how the world is behaving in this hard times!


sorry again if I offended anyone it wasn't truly my intention. just expressing what goes in my soul!

cheers

and happy days for everyone

While you make an excellent point Cleobis, I believe what the anti-damage advocates are most worried about is the bull running loose.  Today it bent props, tomorrow it's a wing, then the fuselage breaks in two, 10 years down the huge it's a blood explosion extrodinaire.

I don't think they're too unreasonable in thinking this should happen, and even though I align myself with those wanting damage, imagine if the situation spiraled out of control like that.  While this option would likely be toggleable, the screenshots wouldn't.  The screenshots board would likely be overrun with all manner of death and destruction.  FS also appeals, forgive me if I sound prude, to a gamer of a higher intellect.  No doubt this board, even if it has come down a bit over the years, would be completely taken over by nerds.  You know the type.  Lyke, OMGF tihs expoolsion is so kool!  Casome1 make me a blood addon?  Kthnks.  We definitely don't want this.  In all truthful honesty, I don't doubt something like this would happen, and indeed I wouldn't be all to surprised if it did.

However, like I said before, we need compromise.  I would like undercarriage failures, bent props and some nice touches like that.  Engine cownling scrapes for steep takeoffs would be great as well.  Even if it was only a sound effect.  But I also would be more than slightly dissappointed if FS were reduced to something like Battlefield 2, even if a game like than doesn't involve any blood whatsoever.  What we'd have to do, is come together and demonstrate to Microsoft just how much is okay, and how much is untolerable.

Compromise people.  Galvanized, polorized extremism never solved anything.  Both sides have valid points.  Can't we put these worst case scenarios to rest?

I agree that explosions and stuff like that are not needed, and make have no reason to exist in fs9. All I want is "recoveral damage", I mean, the kind of damage that can almost make you crash but that with some skill you might just pull through...

Elevators that don't work, flaps broken, belly landings, etc,etc.

I'm not an advocate of violence just for the sake of violence. If violence is part of the expirence, as in il2 planes tearing upo in flames, I see no prblm, but in fs there is no need for that kind of thing.

Anyways, I hope that MS implemente that kind of "recoveral damage", as for the rest, I hope people don't go to extremes, because then all the comuniti would suffer.

cheers

spot on JB. Totally agree

I dont know, I am for mild damage effects, but more so to the extent that you can tell that there is something wrong, without the need for an explosion or "tearing" of the fuselage. To simulate a belly landing without the green "CRASH!" running along the top would be nice, and sparks is ok, but I think that actually showing the damage such as tearing and such, is not necessary, if you get some smoke from over-exerted brakes, and some sparks if your landing gear caves and you belly-out, I think you get the idea.

And I completely agree with the recoverable damage idea. The last thing I need or want on a 2-4 hour flight is something to go wrong that is not even going to allow me to make a successful emergency landing. If you damage flaps, or spoilers or landing gear, or if you have a wing that begins losing fuel, it is still very possible to successfully land the plane, with a hint of urgency in many cases mind, but still. The only non-recoverable damage I can consider is blatantly ignoring a massive thunderstorm and flying directly into a huge, dark, obviously dangerous cloud, which indeed can rip a plane to shreds. Not that I need to see it, but it would be nice for there to be some kind of punishment for such naive behavior.
And as far as propellar damage, I can handle that, if a prop plane makes a belly landing, I am pretty sure the prop is less dense than the runway, and therefore will cave. The only other damage that I could possibly see is for a malfunctioning engine, such as smoke.

Now on the lighthearted side, it would be quite funny to shred a misfortunate duck who ventures into the path of a triple 7's massive GE engines... . Sorry, had to get a little humor in here.

Roast Duck is more like it.

Quote:



The probability that it would enter the core engine is small, more likely to be spat out of the bypass and freeze dried............Duck Jerky anyone?

Matt

lol that would be funny, or if you wind up crashing trump's own personal jet u like wind up behind bar with donald trump screaming curses at u and saying ur fired.   8)

Right,

"Captain, you have unceremoniously ignored all warning lights on your panel, resulting in a complete loss of all systems. This has led to your 747 unceremoniously crashing halfway over the Atlantic, luckily, there were no passengers on board, but you have single handedly destroyed an aircraft, not to mention you died in the crash, so, your actions have resulted in your forced resignation from World Travel Airlines."

So captain, *red screen* You're FIRED!

I too would like mild damage effects. Bent props, flap/spolier damage, tire blow outs(with & without loosing the whole gear) etc. But nothing of the horendous fireball down the runway type. Save it for the movies. If a belly landing were possible in FSX, I'd like to see more realism in the aircraft involved. Example, 747 belly lands,fire and rescue race to scene, and for aircraft realism sake....the emergency exits with inflatable chutes deployed. That always bothered me in FS9. Great flight, go park, powerdown, open exits,your passengers fall 25 or so feet to the tarmac . My 2 cents..........

Quote:


Yes, I've always wanted that to be implemented. Some flights I actually want to have an engine failure, but I don't want to be looking at the clock thinking "any time now". I'd rather it be out of the blue, as of course is the case in real life.