Declaring emergencies?

[Reno]

I'm just wondering if you can declare emergencies, like if you run out of fuel, like I just did. I haven't seen a way to delcare an emergency.

[Zaphod]

Nope.
Sorry Reno. That facility doesn't exist in FS9.

Zaph0d

[ashaman]

That facility doesn't exist in FS9.

Nor in FSX.

Nor will be contemplated in FS11 (wagers are accepted).

Of course you can always fly on-line and do something like that, though you better clear before with the controllers if they feel like dealing with the possibility of an emergency on your part (they do what they do for fun, after all). There should not be a problem, but asking never killed no one, didn't it?

[Digital Filmmaker]

I've always thought that in order to make it "as real as it gets", online controllers would be eager to allow such a challenge, assuming of course (which is a huge assumption) that people didn't abuse it, and it only came up as often as the sim created it.

[murjax]

This is why we have things like VATSIM.  :)

[Sakura]

Get FSPassengers.

[ashaman]

FSpassenger produces emergencies better than the piss poor FS emergencies system, but does nothing about the ATC.

Maybe Radar Contact. Maybe. Not sure here. :-/

[Kaworu]

It would be cool too have a proper emergency system, but we can only do so much with a ai atc system.

[RitterKreuz]

There are missions in FSX during which you declare an emergency - or rather - your copilot declares the emergency while you fly the plane.

Though i have to say to implement emergency handling into FSX or FS9 would be easy. All they would have to do is clear you direct to the airport and ask you if you want equipment rolling? if you say yes fire trucks pull alongside your plane after landing.

If it is an engine failure the controller can simply provide you a heading to the nearest airprot.

thats it.

really only like 3 ATC Responses would have to be added to the game

1. " Roger, squak emergency, fly heading XXX, the destination airport is at your 11 o'clock 8 miles, you are cleared for landing on the runway of your choice - do you need us to roll the equipment?"

2. "Roger equipment standing by, good luck." or "Roger, equipment on alert, but not rolling."

3. "Roger, copy that you need to land at the nearest airport... the nearest airport is XXX at your 3 o'clock, 4 miles, fly heading 050 you're cleared for immediate landing on any runwayt. good luck"

[ashaman]

There are missions in FSX during which you declare an emergency - or rather - your copilot declares the emergency while you fly the plane.

Though i have to say to implement emergency handling into FSX or FS9 would be easy. All they would have to do is clear you direct to the airport and ask you if you want equipment rolling? if you say yes fire trucks pull alongside your plane after landing.

Missions apart (I think of them as a waste), what you put in words tells a lot about M$'s focus about FS.

Why waste time really bettering the simulation experience (thing that will be appreciated only by those who think of and use FS as a simulator) when we can make so that the graphic is sleeker (thing that will be appreciated by those who think of FS as a game)?

After all, those who think of FS as a game use the simulator for three, max six months and then sell it away, while those who use it as a simulator keep it for longer time and use it inside-out.

In the end, M$ focuses at the shortest time interval. As a new version of FS goes out a lot of gamers buy it, then, as the missions end, they forget it, sell it away or leave it to gather dust somewhere, leaving behind the hard-core simmers (we all) to use it still. And M$ seems to prefer regaling boons to the gamers, rather than those who use their program for longer... maybe because once sold the program is not a income source anymore and their only focus in life is to sell more only?

If this analysis of mine is correct, we will not have anything resembling a correct simulation not even with FSXX.

[JBaymore]

Why waste time really bettering the simulation experience (thing that will be appreciated only by those who think of and use FS as a simulator) when we can make so that the graphic is sleeker (thing that will be appreciated by those who think of FS as a game)?

It is amazing how sweeping generalizations are so dangerous to make.  :)

I consider myself a VERY hardcore simmer......... what with the full scale simpit with all the aircraft systems getting replicated as accurately as I can, the hours of simpit construction work, the tweeking of my aircraft's flight model, and spending hours hand flying approaches and profiles, learning to read charts, and in general the amount of "flying" time I put into this hobby.

For me, improving the visual scenery is ALSO a HUGELY important factor in the use of the program as a simulator.  Simulation is very much about immersion and the suspension of disbelief.  The graphical quality is a wonderful tool to help with this factor.  It is NOT just "eye candy".  As are animations and such.

In fact, when one runs a simpit, we usually could care less about stuff like new aircraft models for a gazillion different aircraft.  We tend to fly one plane.... a LOT.  We look a lot for stuff like very accurate airports (maybe even with animated stuff to avoid and keep track of), accurate landclass and terrain elevations so that we are dealing with "real world" situations, clouds that present similar visibility conditions to the real world, accurate road placement for VFR navigation and maybe for visual cues for confirming some IFR flights, accurate coastlines, and so on.  

If I could get GoogleEarth WITH fully accurate autogen of trees and buildings....... I'd be really happy.  :o



So.... Dear Microsoft..... pour on the graphics, thank you very much.    To me, it is one more important part of the simulator package.  I know that you can't cover EVERYTHING in a software package that costs less then $100 USD ............ but keep up the incremental improvements with each realease.  This is being said by someone who does not have the hardware YET to run FSX effectively at the level I would wish to have ........ but I will someday.  And that is MY problem, not yours.  (Putting away the pennies.)

best,

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

[Cessna93]

Dang, thats ruined me then.

[ashaman]

It is amazing how sweeping generalizations are so dangerous to make.  :)

I may be generalizing, but then, you're no better than me, and are only doing the opposite. :-?


I like the slicker graphics. O like a lot less ONLY the slicker graphics. And if you think about it better, aside for spheric geography finally been there (after only 17 years of requests), slicker graphics is all FSX is.


Maybe we'll need another 17 years before a something important that has nothing to do with graphics will be implemented again. A shame we're not immortal, isn't it?

[Brett_Henderson]

slicker graphics is all FSX is.  

Utterly un-true  


And even if that un-informed opinion were true.. when you get right down to it..  the WHOLE thing is graphics. FS-any-version is a visual, 2-D representation that REQUIRES over-the-top graphics to, like JBaymore said, perpetuate the illusion. The deeper and more intense the graphics, the better the whole immersion.

Growing pains aside... FSX is a newer, better experience in many ways.

[Kaworu]

Stop arguing. While it is true that FSX is a huge step forward is FS tech, it's own advanced features set it back with many as we just want a basic sim that we can run with half decent FPS ratings. It's not just graphics, it's the little details that impress me. For example, the animated cars and airport vehicles make FSX absolutely beautiful.

If you want to argue about FSX, start your own thread in FSX section.