this pisses me off and makes the game half as fun

[jubjub47]

Things kinda changed after 9/11, whether you feel it's good or bad.  I remember the days of showing up to the airport 10 mins before the flight, but the current methods aren't ruining my vacations at all.  Whether or not the explosions can lead to attacks like we saw or not, they aren't a necessary element of a GA flightsimulator.  If something as minor as that can stop attacks from happening, so be it.  Might I suggest that if your after those effects to find them from freeware and payware developers and not direct your complaint to the the developer of the simulation software.  

[JBaymore]

For me, adding back in crash effects is in no way "about" deliberately crashing.

[ruekesj]

as a marketing strategy, i think microsoft actually did make the right decision for a change.      whether 9/11 had happened or not,  play your flight sim with full crash effects in the same room with anyone who has seen,  survived,  or had family who did not survive a plane crash, and see what kind of response you receive.    i don't think that seeing my simulated aircraft in an exsplosive fireball is worth the emotional trauma.  
 
if it adds to your perceptions of realism,   i.e.  makes you more aware of the situations that can lead to a crash...   i stand behind you.    

if you like the effects for the sheer joy of watching aircraft burn in flames,  no longer does the "game" qualify as a simulation  and you would be better off purchasing a combat sim that comes in the box with crash effects included.


this all, however, is just my opinion.    

[JBaymore]

[quote]

[Billerator]

[quote]

[Delta_]

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

[Smoke2much]

I think there is a space issue and a speed issue at stake here as well.  The physics of the flight model and the graphics currently take up 2GB on my drive and I have very few addons.  Add in the crash physics and the extra graphics for exploding buildings etc and you will get a much larger package.

In addition we have a speed issue.  Look at the cfs series, you always get a slowdown in performance when there is an explosion on screen.  You are creating a graphics intense envioronment which many systems have trouble with.

As far as I am aware most FS users report FPS drops when close to the ground in any case, add in the crash effects sub programming and you will probably see an even greater drop.

Also this isn't a video game it is a "serious" simulation.  I have never flown for real other than as a passenger so I cannot comment on realism but I would point out that for many pilots a crash is a non survivable situation.  The pilot (ie you) wold not live to see the "cool" flames that are immolating him. I'm not trying to be holier than thou about this.  I have quite merrily burned countless thousands of virtual people since the days of Syndicate (Amiga version )

My final point is that when I crash I want to reset the situation again quickly so that I can try again.  Imagine a competition like the current "Fly under the space shuttle".  At the moment you have crash detect on and off.  I have it on, otherwise it is cheating.  If I had had to sit through 30 seconds of "effects" each time I messed up, I'd still be trying....

I do agree that we need more "stuff" going on with wear and tear.  I switched the sim to max realism and endless fuel the other day.  I put the park brake on, the mixture to full rich and the throttle wide open and sat on the ground and maximum time compress.  I then went to work.

40 minutes travel to work.  10 hour shift.  40 minutes home.  The engine was still rock solid.  I reckon that no engine can go for a few weeks at full throttle and not develop a few "issues".

So there you have my thoughts.  Disorganised as per usual but what the heck.

Will

[Subtle]

I made this thread, so I just need to make my point clear, I dont

[RollerBall]

When you crash a POSKY heavy it breaks up and there is some smoke.

Anything more than that is ridiculous in my view and even that's unnecessary in a prog like this.

There are plenty of kids' games that have all those effects ie games you PLAY. This is a flight simulation that's aimed at a totally different market and M$ were right to leave em out.

I get cheesed off waiting for the prog to reset if I accidentally dump the Bell while inspecting work I've done on scenery and I'd sure as h*ll not want to sit there for another 30 seconds watching a childish display of smoke and flames.

I guess the folks who want that kinda stuff aren't the ones who spend hours learning about Instrument approaches and how to do em - that to me is what REALISM is all about, not seeing crashing and burning.

But it takes all sorts.

[Smoke2much]

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

[JBaymore]

I get cheesed off waiting for the prog to reset if I accidentally dump the Bell while inspecting work I've done on scenery and I'd sure as h*ll not want to sit there for another 30 seconds watching a childish display of smoke and flames.

I guess the folks who want that kinda stuff aren't the ones who spend hours learning about Instrument approaches and how to do em - that to me is what REALISM is all about, not seeing crashing and burning.

But it takes all sorts.

Roller,

The crash effects that I use typically last about no longer than the default "CRASH" message stuff that MS built in to start with.  And if you don't really "put it down hard".... you can still get lesser damage and maybe walk away.

And although I have added back in the crash effects..... I do spend a LOT of time learning how to fly percision approaches and fly "by the numbers".  (....that's not to say I'm good at it  ;) )

"Realism" is about all of that kind of stuff being there.......bringing it to as close to reality as is technically possible.  Instrument and ILS approaches are certainly "real".... but so are potentially massive consequences when you totally botch that apporach.

If it were only about IFR and precision approach flying (say with a hood on for example), then we would not need the aircraft model files (you wouldn't use those external views....can't do that from the real cockpit), or the other airport visual details other than taxiways and runways and instrumentation.  But all of that stuff makes the "suspension of disbelief" more plausible.... and hence the sense of realism is heightened.

So..... yeah.... to each his/her own.  But I don't think it is an "either / or" situation.  Likely it is a "blend".  Heck.... some of us build dumb a** homebilt cockpits in order to increase the realism.  Talk about "childish".  And I are one  ;D.

best,

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

[Skittles]

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

[Smoke2much]

Hmm, I want to repeat what I said above.  I have flamed no-one and ridiculed no one.  I have stated my opinion as is my right as well.  Where is the ridicule?

I believe that crash effects have little or nothing to do with 9/11.  It M$ were concerned they would have made buildings unhitable, not just removed the flashy bits.

I agree with Subtle in some ways.  When I first got FS2000 I was disapointed with the lack of effects.  Four years of use (fs2000, 2002 and 2004) later and I don't miss them as much.  Maybe Subtle has been doing this for four years as well and the lack of effects is starting to bite.  Or maybe he is new to the hobby and (naturally) expected a boom.  Ultimately it matters as much as whether the Spitfire or Hurricane was better.  It's all about choice.

Finally every member of this forum has as much right to express their opinion as any other.  Background, race, creed or age have nothing to do with that right.  No one should feel the need to justify their difference of opinion on any grounds whatsoever.

Will

* Please excuse my spelling as I'm sick as dog here LOL

[RollerBall]

[quote]

If it were only about IFR and precision approach flying (say with a hood on for example), then we would not need the aircraft model files (you wouldn't use those external views....can't do that from the real cockpit), or the other airport visual details other than taxiways and runways and instrumentation.

[Billerator]

I understand what you mean.
I myself have not ( intentionally ) crashed a plane for quite some time, but I still agree with this addition.

If this was about taking some aspect of the simulator away, then I would never support this, however this is adding to it.

Another thing to consider here is the fact that Microsoft has to cater for as large a community as possible. There are a large number of virtual pilots out there, that follow exact procedures ( myself being a happy new owner of Jeppessen SimCharts  8) ) there is also a great number of people that can bareley fly, but still enjoy this simulator. Everyone will have a different reason for enjoying MS's product.

I think its a little harsh to say that only younger simmers have this view ( maby its true, I dont know ).