Kiosutra 7 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 I am very bothered by MK Studios response to the collision issue. Crash detection does nothing for realism. The problem is that is actually has A LOT to do with realism. Its the effect of conciqunce. Knowing of a failure (or crash) is a fundamental element to a sim. FSX/P3D has little to provide this deliverance of consequence to the user. As an instructor I view this to be an EXTREMELY vital tool in simulation. So the sentence you utter here is a clear indication to me that your approach to simulation products is without much care or responsibility. And for that matter I would not recommend or purchase anything further produced from a studio that cannot appreciate an important aspect of ANY Simulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srcooke 422 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 Your choice of course Kiosutra but FS crash detection has been a cause of issues to scenery and aircraft developers for a very long time. Disabled here for well over a decade ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Developer OPabst 2091 Posted March 12, 2017 Developer Share Posted March 12, 2017 Sorry Kiorustra, I hope you are more professional in you job as instructor, as in you post here. Crashdetection in the FS is a simple Box around an Object generated by the Compiler based on the meshes borders inside the Object. It has nothing to do with the complex structure of the object itself. So, you will get the crash, when the crashbox around your aircraft, which also has nothing to do with the structure of your plane, will hit the box around the object. This technical limitation will result in the fact, that 95% (maybe more) developers will use all available features in the SDK to prevent the generation of crashboxes (swithes in xtomdl tool or xml tags in Bglcomp), so that no crash can generated by the sim. The only fault done by MK Studios is not to do this with all there Objects, as other (maybe all) developer will do it or they simple miss one. When this is for you a point to recommand not to buy there products, you should not buy any addon anymore (scenery or aircrafts) as all will not fullfill your "most important" feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emi 5161 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Kiosutra said: Crash detection does nothing for realism. The problem is that is actually has A LOT to do with realism. Its the effect of conciqunce. Knowing of a failure (or crash) is a fundamental element to a sim. FSX/P3D has little to provide this deliverance of consequence to the user. As an instructor I view this to be an EXTREMELY vital tool in simulation. So the sentence you utter here is a clear indication to me that your approach to simulation products is without much care or responsibility. And for that matter I would not recommend or purchase anything further produced from a studio that cannot appreciate an important aspect of ANY Simulation. I fully agree with you Kiosutra, a well done crash detection is a vital element, most certainly in a learning environment like actual 'real' simulators. It is extremly important for flight students to learn about the consequences of their actions. What happens if you descide to take the shortcut over grass between taxiways, what will happen if you do not follow the taxiway centerline, heck, what will even happen if you do not follow TCAS instruction, hit a bird, blow a tire, what kind of damage may appear at a tailstrike with its consequences, what effect exceeding the airframes structural limitations has. In a study simulation this kind of things should not be missing! Unfortunately what our flight simulator offers as 'crash detection' has nothing to do with the above. It simply pauses your flight indefinately when it senses you have done something wrong. Does that add anything to realism? Does it give you the chance to analyse what your mistake was in order to learn for the future? Even Flight Simulator itself has invisible walls on its default airports. You see nothing coming, because there is nothing, and all of the sudden your flight ends. We can not recommend using such a system causing more issues than doing anything good. The moment Lockheed or Dovetail implement a proper crash detection system you can be sure a whole new attitude towards it will find its place in our community! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmoneyprs 186 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 The "crash detection" feature of FSX/P3D is just as bad as the default ATC. The only thing more unrealistic than flying without any ATC is flying with the default ATC. And the same logic applies to crash detection, as it's so depicted in FSX/P3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galax17 10 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 10 hours ago, gmoneyprs said: The "crash detection" feature of FSX/P3D is just as bad as the default ATC. The only thing more unrealistic than flying without any ATC is flying with the default ATC. And the same logic applies to crash detection, as it's so depicted in FSX/P3D. Lol. I cant think of anything more unrealistic than not crashing whatever you fly into. I have more than 30 payware Airports and never had any problems with crash detection which I have enabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted March 13, 2017 Aerosoft Share Posted March 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Galax17 said: Lol. I cant think of anything more unrealistic than not crashing whatever you fly into. I have more than 30 payware Airports and never had any problems with crash detection which I have enabled. How many airports do you have where the FSX ground is not where you actually see it? And how many of the 30 payware airports you have actually have crashable objects? A lot do not, you know? In fact most developers do not add crash boxes any more because FS handles them so badly. So it could very well that you have crash detection active without anything to crash into. You contact all those developers to say "I cant think of anything more unrealistic than not crashing whatever you fly into" cause for sure you must hate those sceneries! Crash detection has always been buggy in every version of FS I know. Not only because FS often mixes up your viewpoint with the actual aircraft (so when you are in outside view the aircraft often is unable to crash or you crash you viewpoint), it also takes a lot of resources to calculate, even in the air and thus lowering framerates. How often do you run into things that crash detection is an important thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galax17 10 Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said: How many airports do you have where the FSX ground is not where you actually see it? Crash detection has always been buggy in every version of FS I know. Not only because FS often mixes up your viewpoint with the actual aircraft (so when you are in outside view the aircraft often is unable to crash or you crash you viewpoint), it also takes a lot of resources to calculate, even in the air and thus lowering framerates. Truth to be told it has happened a few times I didnt crash while hitting a building and one time a crash at the apron of an payware Airport (Bromma) but as a whole I find it to be ok on payware. Freeware Airports (ex. Graz, Istanbul) have this problem to a bigger extent though. on those I disable crashdetection before flying into/from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted March 13, 2017 Aerosoft Share Posted March 13, 2017 But again, many developers simply do not include crashable objects anymore. In your logic that would be highly unrealistic and I wonder if you complain about that as well. Probably not as you probably never noticed. So where is the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Developer MK-Studios 234 Posted March 13, 2017 Developer Share Posted March 13, 2017 Making crash object in Madeira airport that includes: a ) fake floating runway in the air (pillars) that is not supported by FS development tools and the sim itself, b ) lightning, taxiway paths, ai traffic not connected to default FS mesh, c ) papi lights with external working physics (slope etc.), d ) mesh around the airport that isn't fs mesh, it's modeled in 3d, e ) moving vehicles paths that are programmed to move on fs mesh surface (walkaround - it's working of course), f ) ground layering in FSX native material (lot's of tricks done to make it work), g) ground flatten hack, may be a little bit hard. So if there's something that cause crash it may take weeks to track it. Anyway thinking this way I find every Level-D sim being used to train real pilots unrealistic, when you crash a plane there it just stops. Good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.