Aircraft Structural Damage

[Randy87]

Yes, I know the point is not to damage the aircraft, but there are hundreds of already modelled emergencies that don't simulate the structural damage to the aircraft.

For example, the Embraer jets had a history of propeller fatigue cracks, or the DC-9 engine blow out causing damage to the tail and hydraulics. A simple engine flame out left untreated which could cause serious structural damage to the wing, you get my drift.

All these situations present a challenging experience for any pilot, and finding your way out of it will be so much more satisfying if when we finally land, we would see the damage our aircraft has sustained.

I know this is probably a huge undertaking as the possibilities and combinations are endless, but I think it's an important part of flight simulation, and just because you clipped the top of that tree, doesn't mean it should reset the flight and set that as a crash, give us a challenge! :)

[WarpD]

This type of behavior was removed after 9/11.

[tonaz]

Which remove the lifelikeness behaviour as well.
The fun and the eyecandyness also.
Pointless to remove it.
While was sensefull to remove WTC because of 11/9.
But plane damage model...

[WarpD]

We don't teach how to crash... what is the actual value? It serves no actual purpose.

[jostytosty]

The MJC Q400 has some damage modeled, bursting tires, clogged up engine intakes by ice, engine fire that stops the plane, circuit breakers dat pop out and stop the functions of the attached system. So it is there, it would however be nice that, when you lose a gear the acft would veer off the runway in a way it would really do.

[WarpD]

The MJC Q400 has some damage modeled, bursting tires, clogged up engine intakes by ice, engine fire that stops the plane, circuit breakers dat pop out and stop the functions of the attached system. So it is there, it would however be nice that, when you lose a gear the acft would veer off the runway in a way it would really do.

Lesse... icing - default FS doesn't show anything visual... that's all 3D modeler efforts. Engine fire... doesn't REALLY stop the plane... that's custom code. All of that is custom code that isn't actually part of the core sim.

It's even possible to make the aircraft veer off the runway as well as see the wing dip and scrape, etc... but it requires custom programming.

The default crash, parts falling and exploding burning wreckage is what has been removed.

[Randy87]

WarpD, the issue I have with that theory is that, god forbid some dimwit actually wants to use the simulator for something like that, the removal of the structural damage makes no impact to it.

They can still simulate flight, they don't really need to see any explosions on the simulator. And explosions weren't what I was thinking about either, more the little things that make a big difference.

Wing damage, hail damage, hydraulic issues resulting from engine blow out, propellor blade failure, cargo door failiures resulting in a rapid decompression. Pilots train for hundreds of hours for failures and how to handle it. We do have failiures but I just believe the visual structural damage and resulting impact on the flight dynamics is a vital part of learning to fly.

Just my opinion. :)

[WarpD]

Detailed and complex failures are possible without the need of visual damage to the airframe. In most aircraft you won't see visual damage because the simulator doesn't provide a 360* view. So... I am uncertain of any value. None of the training systems I've helped develop have had a need for visual damage and many of them are type-specific AATDs that provide lots of failures to tax the trainees.

[Randy87]

Hmmm I understand what you're saying, but for example how do you simulate the aerodynamic effect of drag and loss of lift on one side of the airplane where poor maintanence has caused the engine to snap right off it's mount and it's just dangling to a side or it has snapped back and damaged the wing, without the visual representation of that damage?

If I was in a twin engine turbo prop, I would be able to see both wings and engines clearly, and this would give me an immediate diagnosis of the problem, rather than reading a fault code from various addons that don't really tell you the full story and don't really simulate it either.

[WarpD]

Uh... no one is trained in a simulator for things like that. Seriously.

[roger-wilco-66]

I think the whole discussion should be wether or not LM should provide a standardized interface in the sim for damage modeling and the conditioning. The latter partly already exists natively.
As far as aircraft are concerned the devs would have to provide alternative damage models (e.g. like CFS2) to make use of it.

As far as usability goes, in my opinion, the request is not so far fetched if it takes the simulation of adverse situations into account as long as it is not just for eye candy.

Cheers,
Mark

[jemr69]

I think it would be useful to add support for structural damage simulation, both the visual and logic components of the simulation. That would add much more realism and allow pilots to try to deal with these events and try to land safely or make a safe crash landing in the event a normal landing is not possible.

FS2004 had a crash model for a limited number of aircraft, like the default Cessna. When you crashed, your aircraft would broke apart and you could briefly see it falling into pieces. So It is not impossible to take that concept again, but with much better graphics and realism.

[bicha36]

If are necessary to have structural damage in aircraft, FS or P3D is not for you, you should get GTA 5, looks more suitable for that purposes.