Simviation Forums

Ok I was wondering if ther has been any crash effects for fsx added yet.

and before ppl start flaming because its not a "crash simulator" I ask you this: Failuires happen IRL.. right? if im not mistaken a great deal of PPL training is how to handle failures to keep you alive. right?

So when there is a failure, and im trying to take the plane down with landing gear failure, or engine failure above water, or a forest without a perfectly groomed landing strip. what happens? apperently according to fs.. you die..

but what about having a rough landing, even if it doesnt entail sparks flying everywhere, but maybe just a skid down the runway or "sim"thing. Like at least somthing to tell you weather your crash landing was at least survivable or somthing other then just "crash" your dead kinda thing.

how about it?

It would be nice.

FSX does have "failures" that you can turn on and off.  As for parts flying off of your craft?? No i dont think so.   

Some FS9 craft that were ported over to FSX (new gauges) will have this, and to find out.. open your aircraft.cfg  at the bottom of EVERY [fltsim.#] section you find for the aircraft you want to fly, put:: visual_damage=1   

get in the sim, turn on crash detection.   now go hit a building.   If the FS9 plane has Crash Damage in the model, then parts will fly off.

[fltsim.0]
title=Cessna Skyhawk 172SP
sim=Cessna172SP
model=
panel=
sound=
texture=
kb_checklists=Cessna172SP_check
kb_reference=Cessna172SP_ref
atc_id=N176CM
ui_manufacturer=Cessna
ui_type="C172SP Skyhawk"
ui_variation="White with blue and gray"
description="A stable and trustworthy plane, most pilots have logged at least a few hours in a Cessna 172, since it's the most widely available aircraft in the rental fleet, and is used by most flight schools. Since the first prototype was completed in 1955, more than 35,000 C172s have been produced, making it the world's most popular single-engine plane.  One of Cessna's first tricycle-gear airplanes, the 172 quickly became the favorite of a growing class of business pilots.  Its reliability and easy handling (along with thoughtful engineering and structural updates) have ensured its continued popularity for more than 35 years."
visual_damage=1

[quote]FSX does have "failures" that you can turn on and off.

Just to add to this, this is something I am also very interested.

Many a time have I wanted to see if I can land with no gear up successfully, like amazingly talented pilot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9zXweJ4 ... w&index=26 this is actually breath takingly good

FS's crashes were always stupid. Even in the CFS series it looked severely unrealistic. When you crash a plane in FS you have two failures commited by microsoft: the plane gets imobilized and, if there are parts that fly away, those go on through the ground. Now one of the best simulators I've seen in terms of crash landing realism, mid-air collisions and crashes is IL2. Man that's awesome, when you get too damaged to return to the base and you can't lower your gear. I once crashed a Hawker Hurricane at 300KPH when I hit the ground with my wingtip. The plane went tumbling and rolling, parts flying off until it came to a halt as only the part of the fuselage envolving the cockpit.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKrfUFYINho
For some reason the Russian aircraft are sturdier than all the others when you hit the ground at high speed (not head on). The german planes, on the other hand, even crash landing them with the gear down can cause it to explode.

I did some experimenting around, and by tweaking the contact points (scrapes class "2") in the .cfg file I can "belly in" with an Aero Commander 500 without triggering a crash. I basically reasigned the location values of the scrape points to the same X and Y of the landing gear, but raised them a little (Z) so the aircraft was not hovering. (I raised them a little tooo much, since the fusalage sinks too far into the ground, but that's just more minor tweaking). But even then, if you come in way too fast or in an unusual attitude, it will still crash (but at least a easilly survivable belly landing can be done.)

Here's the contact points:

[quote][contact_points]
//point.0=1.000, 12.783,

You people are dreaming. To have a realistic special effect of ANY KIND, you MUST HAVE coders who have an innate willingness to work on their projects and are capable of handling the finest details...

Now tell me. IN ALL HONESTY. Please. Hearing which one of these requirement made you think: "WOW! But that's SO Microsoft!"

Slovenly sloppiness in coding, that's what M$ is made of. Don't hope to be ever able to squeeze blood from turnips, guys.

The only thing you can do to make thing a little better is to turn all those sorry excuses for collisions off and forget about them in omnia saecula saeculorum. After all, these routines have been carelessly pasted there by people who knew that without those routines the buyers would have complained, and so made a poor job of it (even by M$'s standards).

Be YOU YOURSELVES the judges of when you messed up so badly to deserve to restart the flight. M$ is not liable to want to help you any time soon, even if you PAY THEM for it.

You people are dreaming. To have a realistic special effect of ANY KIND, you MUST HAVE coders who have an innate willingness to work on their projects and are capable of handling the finest details...

...and a super-computer to run the program.

Did you have something constructive to contribute?

As to if you can just "skid down the runway on your belly" NO, that is considered a CRASH landing; unless you modify the contact points on your plane of choice for "SKIDS".   

if it is a "crash" landing, it is still a crash.

I tried it both ways.

...and a super-computer to run the program.

You need a supercomputer to run IL2?

My... who would have ever suspected it. To believe I've heard it needed WAY less power than FSX to work much better. Funny thing the misinformation some do, ain't it?

Did you have something constructive to contribute?

I, at least, suggested deactivating and forgetting about M$ collision routines, deeming them unquestionably unworthy, and suggesting to use your brain instead... and you? What did YOU write exactly of constructive beside feeling offended on behalf of M$ for my words? :-?

Manipulation of contact points? Oh, I see. Have fun skirting around the still there and still unsolved problem while putting a cork to the sinking Titanic, then.

May I simply point out that if you enter a room with a radio set which volume is set at full blast and impossible to dial down, covering your ears does nothing, but you MUST shut off the radio set to solve the problem? If you do not understand this metaphor, leave it well alone. I do understand it all too well, and so I hope will someone else.

the question to the problem is.... "Is sliding down the runway on your belly, or doing a water landing possible without getting a sudden crash in FSX?"

YES. change the contact points as described above and this will be achieved.


Strategic, If i walk into a room to which has a radio that is wide blast on volume, you can muffle the speakers to lessen the volume if the volume knob is broken.

Did you have something constructive to contribute?

I, at least, suggested deactivating and forgetting about M$ collision routines, deeming them unquestionably unworthy, and suggesting to use your brain instead... and you? What did YOU write exactly of constructive beside feeling offended on behalf of M$ for my words? :-?

Manipulation of contact points? Oh, I see. Have fun skirting around the still there and still unsolved problem while putting a cork to the sinking Titanic, then.

Manipulation of contact points?, yeah, that's what it's all about! Using your brain. All you seem to have is a great disdain for FSX an microsoft, so why do you bother with it? This is a hobby and that's why this forum is here, so we can use our brains to figure out how to make are hobby better. I belive what the subject is really about is how to preform an emergency landing, and it would be nice to do it without the sim just crashing you. So if it takes tweeking of the aircraft cfg file, sine labore nihil.

Using your brain. All you seem to have is a great disdain for FSX an microsoft, so why do you bother with it?

I see with pleasure that you too, like many, have the selective reading capability down pat. MEANING, that what you DON'T WANT to acknowledge, SUDDENLY isn't there anymore for you, even if written in bold.

In the light of this, I really don't see the point of answering you. Whatever I'd say, you would simply read what you want and discard all that doesn't sync with your tastes.

Anyway, hoping that for once you will deactivate the "selective reading" app in your brain, yes, I do not like FSX. Why? MUST I like it? Is this now the Empire of M$, that whatever they do you MUST like or, as an alternative, you MUST like anyway? The problem with the shabbiness of the "special effects" is verbatim under FS9, FS2002 and even further away along time, so the matter INTERESTS ME TOO, if you like it or not.

Why don't I go away? Simple:

1) This is NOT your forum. You cannot tell me to go or to remain.

2) Especially if it's YOU telling me to go away, be sure that I will remain, if only so you can enjoy my presence if you like it or not.

3) There's a proverb in the dialect of Rome I subscribe to that states: [i]Chi fugge dalla lotta