Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Crash Realism

  1. #1

    Default Crash Realism

    No I don't mean twisted metal and charred bodies everywhere... However I just had a debate which I think I lost over at XPlane dot org regarding the fight model of XP11 being far too forgiving of situations that in real world aviation would have crashed the aircraft, resulting in a partial or total loss of the airframe and in many cases the souls on board.

    I've been flying sims since F16 Combat Pilot (military) and Thalion A320 (civvie) on the Amiga in 1992. The one constant of all these sims/games is that if you mishandle the aircraft, accidentally or deliberately you will crash and lose the flight/aircraft. Heck the least forgiving was probably DI's Tornado, particularly if you hadn't dropped your JP233 runway perforator, if you touched down even slightly over the maximum FPM.

    With MSFS, we get a choice in the realism settings to turn crashes on and off and impose stresses on the airframe from excessive manoeuvring. However XP11 will not even terminate the flight if you come down tail first in a forest at >2000 fpm. The plane just carries on at 130 knots along the ground. Doesn't even have collision detection with buildings.

    Like I say, I'm not going to win the argument over at the XP forum so thought I would throw it open to wider debate here, in an arena that encompasses all branches of the hobby. I fully accept that putting an aircraft into an un-recoverable situation should be optional, but without that where's the incentive to do it right, or that white knuckle moment followed by the sense of elation when you make a particularly difficult visual landing and stop on a narrow short field?
    Vern.

  2. Default

    This discussion?
    https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php...-so-forgiving/

    I don't have X Plane so I don't know how it handles crashes.

    If an aircraft is properly modeled then it should also come with any unrecoverable situations it could get into.
    For example a deep stall where you no longer have control over the aircraft's attitude.

    Interaction with terrain should also be modeled in some way.
    Not all aircraft always land on designated runways.
    For example, you could be able to land your piper cub on some soggy terrain but only if you do it just right.
    Or making an emergency landing on the water with an airliner. If it is modeled well you can learn something from it.

    But these are not so extreme crashes.
    If I were to fly a jet straigt down into the ground then I wouldn't care much if the sim would make it bounce back into the stratosphere or stops it dead.

  3. #3

    Default

    That's the one...

    Somehow, I think I stirred a hornet's nest with what was to me quite an innocent question. At least part of the problem is that people don't seem to have actually read my comments and just assumed I wanted fireballs.

    Quite agree there are circumstances where you might need to land off a runway, but doing that in a heavy tube liner is almost certain to end in disaster. They got lucky on the Potomac, but in essence it was still a "crash" in that it terminated the flight and the aircraft needed a tow (!)...
    Vern.

Similar Threads

  1. Crash realism
    By DreamAirline in forum FSX
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-11-2013, 03:48 PM
  2. Crash Realism/ Damage Effects
    By danfgreen in forum FS2002
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 06:54 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2012, 12:28 AM
  4. Crash, Crash, Crash
    By medicus2404 in forum DreamFleet 727 Support Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-21-2005, 03:38 AM
  5. Crash realism
    By Melesi in forum FS2002
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-23-2002, 10:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •