crash effects

[Slotback]

I, at least, suggested deactivating and forgetting about M$ collision routines, deeming them unquestionably unworthy, and suggesting to use your brain instead...

No. What you posted was yet another one of your incredibly boring, predictable rants about how bad microsoft coders are. It just so happens that buried in the middle of your annoying rant there was the suggestion that collisions should be turned off which hardly qualifies as something "constructive" but by definition, destructive.

and you? What did YOU write exactly of constructive beside feeling offended on behalf of M$ for my words?

Uhm, he posted something about tweaking contact points so you can skid down the runway. And there was no rant in it or pompous attitude in his posts either, unlike yours.

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?

A simple "IL2 does not require a super-computer and has a far better damage system than MSFS" would do. But no. You whine about misinformation. DCS has a far better destruction system than MSFS and IL2 and doesn't need a super-computer either.

? Is this now the Empire of M$, that whatever they do you MUST like or, as an alternative, you MUST like anyway?

We have all read many of your rants over and over again because every second post of yours is one. It's not that we like the shortcomings of MSFS or blindly love MSFS despite it's shortcomings. It's that there is absolutely nothing anyone on this website can do to fix them. We are not Microsoft. We do not control Microsoft. So if someone asks for a way around the shortcomings, we will try to offer a way around them whether it is as good as IL2 or not.

Do you really think your rants actually help people? They. Do. Not. They are annoying and contribute less than nothing, infact. We have a long history of clowns on simviation. You are close to the top. And believe me, either they change attitude or are removed. Stop wasting your time annoying people, because I guarantee you are, and write an article for the Flight subforum making a case that Flight needs to improve on these areas otherwise members should avoid Flight.

That, or maybe you should stop flaming people on internet forums and actually, uhm... do something with your life. Slow birthday?

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

He didn't tell you to leave even though it is what much of the forum wants. But that's besides the point. Why can't he? It's no more against the rules as any of your postings is.

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

[Ang2dogs]

PS
From now on, if you answer to my posts showing off your master level selective reading capabilities, you will not receive direct answers.

First of all picking a fight on a computer screen is not my style.
Second, who's telling you to leave the forum?
Third, I don't see anything in my post calling you a coward.
4th, "Cogito Ergo Sum." (I think Therefore I am.), there I translated that for you.
and 5th, my question toward you is legitimate in understanding that if your so unhappy with FSX, maybe you might find that you can learn alot in this forum, about how to get the sim to work well.

I don't have a super PC running FSX, but my little old Dell and ATI9250, has me running FSX around 75%, which still looks and flys better than FS9, and if it wasn't for this forum, I'd most likly have thrown FSX away and went back to FS9.

With that said, back on the original subject,
Thanks Boikat and Capt.Propwash for the contacts tweeks.

[michaelb15]

c'mon guys i didnt start this topic to start a fight...

actually I specifically hinted not to have any of this flaming in the very first post I made... Before any of this fighting broke out.. fighting isnt gonna solve anything.. the best way to deal with ppl like that is to ignore them. then they learn nobody cares what they have to fight about, then it just shows how immuture they really are..

but anyway..  I will try editing in those contact points, and see how much better that makes it..

What about making wingtips contact points? so that if you happen to strike a wingtip it will spin ya around rather then crash? does this make sense? Im not sure how to do that kinda thing, and this is why I ask..

So please.. lets keep fighting to a minumim, and try to deal with the topic at hand.. and Maybe everyone can walk away from this with a little bit better realism of their FS crashes. Not all ***** off at their fellow simmers.. because in the end all we want the best simming experience that is possibly available.

Thankyou and Have a good day

[Strategic Retreat]

For all stating nobody cares... damn but you seem to. Anyway, my bitterness is only granted by the actual situation. I understand you don't want to hear about it... then again, I strongly believe that those who accept a bad situation silently only invite worse situations to happen.

I do not talk about Flight because it's a waste of time to talk about a thing about which there's no concrete info about. Nothing can be told about it, beside sterile speculation. There is still nothing sure about it (beside maybe the almost certain involution of the add-ons management) and I would be really been ranting if I joined either the pro or the cons sides.

That, and M$ has quite the solid story of having been able to regularly ignore their customers requests, anyway.

This said, my suggestion to simply forget about FS(anynumber)'s collision routines, whatever their worth may be, is just as valid to the ones who try to edit contact points for the simple reason that editing contact points really solves nothing. For one example, it does not solve the fact that if you graze an AI plane, your plane ends up in smoke and the AI plane won't even blink about it, or the fact that no one can find a worthy damage modeling anywhere.

In closure, this is becoming repetitive, and repetita juvant (repeating helps) only up to a point. Closing this file now. Sayonara.

[Boikat]

...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.

You missed the part where I said if you come in and were still too fast or at a bad attitude, you would still trigger the "crash".

As far as IL2, the real point is working with FSX.

[Boikat]

but anyway..  I will try editing in those contact points, and see how much better that makes it..

Caution:  The example I cited was for an AC 500.  The contact points for any other aircraft will be verry different, especially if you are doing a "tube" (airliner).

What about making wingtips contact points? so that if you happen to strike a wingtip it will spin ya around rather then crash? does this make sense? Im not sure how to do that kinda thing, and this is why I ask..

Possibly.  Also, if you are doing any "low wing" aircraft pay attention to the engine nacelles.  Anything lower than the main fusalage needs the new scrape (or skid, or float) points.  If you don't plan on ditching, I wouldn't worry about float points, though, and you can always add them later.

Adding scrapes to the tips might work, but you may have to do a lot of fine tuning, and they will most likely only work if you come in at a bank that would touch the tip to the ground first, and not if you were to come in wings level and clip an object (like a building ro tree) two feet in from the wingtip.

Judging from the earlier positive replies, I guess the question is which class of contact point is the better choice.  Based upon my testing, "scrape" worked best.  Skids were extremely tricky, and usually seemed to end up "flipping the bird" (....ahem....).  I haven't tried floats, but if you want to ditch, you will certainly need float class contact point entries.

[Capt.Propwash]

Skids.   You still might want to Flare just before you touch down, and put a point or 2 @/near the tail and do a "Tail Strike" first before touching the belly, then the nose.   Some Aircraft, 727, 737-3/400, 747-400, 757, MD-88 DO have "tail strike" pads/shocks so that if the pilot puts too much trim and the tail hits the ground, no big deal.

Not to mention, that if you flare and go "tail > belly > nose" and your speed is just slow enough, hopefully you wont flip tail over nose.



But I would still possibly use the "scrape" contact point in the same configuration as above.   try to land tail first, but if not, then go belly > nose.