why no failures

[mac66]

my bro says that there are failures in   fs 2004 so why not in  fsx  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

[Black ZR-1]

You have to activate them which is a shame because that takes the fun out of it...

[trojan rabbit]

yeah, I know...

I keyboard failures for electronics, all engines, hydraulics, and right breaks.  

[Daube]

[quote]my bro says that there are failures in

[Ashton Lawson]

ya, i get that feeling too.

i hav an RC helicopter (not the silly little two channel crash then fly cr@p).  its an acrobatic one, and is designed to do stunts, kinda like the TRex.  one little change in it, one little loss in control can change its dynamics quite a bit, and i know that any mistake can result in a disaster.

in FS, i can do just about anything with no consequence whatsoever.

i propose for FSXI (Flight Simulator 11):

Better, improved aircraft physics engine (which includes engine position, angle, and thrust vectoring).
Enhanced damage (where little things and big things can fall off or get damaged, and still effect the aircraft's dynamics)
And an option under Realism settings, which can randomly give you a problem with your aircraft, so you'll never know when a failure can occur...

[mac66]

no i now that and yes i agree with you can turn on the aircraft stress casue damge but for the failures why cant the atc help that is the part i think sucks

[ThatOnePerson]

Grammar goes a long way..................

[Ashton Lawson]

well, thats going a bit far, and i think the pilot of the aircraft should know how to fix the problem.

but if u mean:  Request EMERGENCY LANDING!!!
then yah, that would be good...

[ashaman]

i propose for FSXI (Flight Simulator 11):

Wasn't that requested before, like, from FS98 to FS2k to FS2002 to FS9 To FSX to... to... too... tooo... damn, the line's broken.

Wasn't that ALWAYS denied with no explanation given?

So why ask again? It's a lost cause with M$. They do what THEY want, in spite of the requests from their customers.

At best in XI we'll have again marginally better graphics.

At best.

[Brett_Henderson]

I'd be tickled to death if there's HALF the overall improvement from FSX to FSXI, as there's been from FS9 to FSX.

The graphical improvements alone are the biggest leap yet (if you've got the hardware to enjoy them)... Not to mention everything else.

Along the lines of these failures... My request to Microsoft would be to have realistic durability bult in (with the option to disable it), in a cumulative way, with data kept on each aircraft. Like.. if you fly the same 172 every day and don't lean mixture, cruise at something less than 100% power, manage engine, cylinder-head and exhaust gas temps.. you'll increase the likelyhood of a failure... That sort of thing. Same with deploying flaps at too high an airspeed..landing hard, etc...

FSPassengers did something like that, but it was blunt and unrealistic.

[Daube]

i propose for FSXI (Flight Simulator 11):

Wasn't that requested before, like, from FS98 to FS2k to FS2002 to FS9 To FSX to... to... too... tooo... damn, the line's broken.

Right, now it's a long time since the community asks for some better damage modelling.

[So why ask again? It's a lost cause with M$. They do what THEY want, in spite of the requests from their customers.

Oh really ? That's not the impression I had. For sure they didn't implement EVERYTHING that was asked, but it would be completely wrong to say that they ignore our expectations.

At best in XI we'll have again marginally better graphics.

Sure, like we had with FSX heh ?

[Daube]

I'd be tickled to death if there's HALF the overall improvement from FSX to FSXI, as there's been from FS9 to FSX.

The graphical improvements alone are the biggest leap yet (if you've got the hardware to enjoy them)... Not to mention everything else.

The graphical improvements of a simulation is very little part of the needed improvements for the realism.
Fortunately, FSX brought a lot of stuff on the non-graphical part as well.

Along the lines of these failures... My request to Microsoft would be to have realistic durability bult in (with the option to disable it), in a cumulative way, with data kept on each aircraft. Like.. if you fly the same 172 every day and don't lean mixture, cruise at something less than 100% power, manage engine, cylinder-head and exhaust gas temps.. you'll increase the likelyhood of a failure... That sort of thing. Same with deploying flaps at too high an airspeed..landing hard, etc...

FSPassengers did something like that, but it was blunt and unrealistic.

Now that I think about it, I'm almost sure this stuff (I mean, avionic/hydrolic/engine failures due to bad manipulation) can be handled by a gauge.
What would still be missing is a physical damage handling, like breaking parts, contact points, impacts, etc...

[lakeskipper]

I downloaded the YS-11 aircraft add on from this site.  I couldn't figure out why my engines kept failing on me.  Then I noticed the little light that says "engine overheat".  Oh, and look at that a temperature gauge.  First time I ever had to worry about stressing an engine in FSX.  It made it a lot more fun and challenging.  Great add-on by the way.