Add Animation to Crash, Engine, Failure, etc

Please add animation to crash, engine failure, fire and more.
Is there any addon?
Please share

wont happen, sorry

2 Likes

Will there be any crash animation later on in the flight sim?
There are games like Beamng, where when you crash into something, the whole plane breaks and shows you where it’s broken.
I definitely don’t expect the same qualtiy as BeamNG, but i still would like to see some gear collapsing animation or fuselage broken by a hard landing.

Unlikely as the licensed versions of real world planes have a reputation aspect to maintain.

1 Like

Just as Casualclick mentioned, it’s contractual licensing obligations as well as being able to maintain the E/PEGI 3 rating. If planes could go boom in sim you could consider it violent content and could raise to an 10+ or even T/16 rating. A little silly but ESRB/PEGI is one of those things made up of people who’s never touched a video game in their lives so they’re it’s not surprise they can be a little prudish once they start nitpicking. Kinda like RIAA or OSHA and the PAB they’ll go looking for things all nitpicky-like to justify their ratings decisions.

On top of that, due to certain recent historical events and flight sims at the time thought to have had something to do with it really killed the idea of having planes physically break apart if you crash. In fact FS2002 (hint) was delayed to change such aspects as a result of certain recent historical events. Not the place to discuss specifics but we can chalk it up to being “too soon” still.

Leave the crash physics simulation in the the crash physics simulator i say (or in warplane simulators where that kind of thing is way more prominent and common)

2 Likes





No Flames – no violent breaking apart – just a few possible real world failures, particularly with the nose gear and bent props. Starter motor smokes if it is run continuously etc etc

Nothing at all VIOLENT, but enough top spoil your day, if you “mess up”

1 Like

I remember way back when Need for Speed couldn’t show damage to car models…I’d guess the same thing is in play here essentially. In the case of msfs i don’t expect to see it get modified at any point though.
Probably a better chance of seeing ped/ai getting sucked into turbines or sliced by props then getting plane damage models. (Which also used to be a “thing”…you couldn’t even hit peds with your car), that changed and car damage models changed. But post 9/11 I’d say there’s good reason to not add damage models/fx to environment/aircraft.

I don’t really mean having flames or crash animation that could cause people to think it is violent.
What i mean is that we could get some really simple animations that are very basic, for example like the wing break motion in x-plane.
It only breaks the wing, it doesn’t have any thing violent.
So perhaps we can add that system to the game?

1 Like

But a wing break would lead to fuel leak, which leads to…where do you stop?
So what’s the point, i don’t really see a need for this, besides could you imagine if they spent time on this instead of getting even potato pc users 90fps over NYC in 8k?! All hell would break loose!

The 9/11 argument doesn’t apply. You can still practice flying a Dreamliner into the Freedom tower today. Damage to the aircraft will be the least of your worries there. It’s pretty obvious the plane would disintegrate and most people have seen exactly what that looks like.

So the 9/11 thing to avoid is showing damage to the BUILDINGS and noone’s suggested adding burning and disintegrating skyscrapers, people jumping from windows or even a burning 747 on the runway.

The point is having an actual indication whether a landing was too hard or whether the wing actually touched the ground or what happens if you overstress the plane. Accidents happen every day and I think it’s important to know what they can result in in order to learn from them from the safety of your office chair.
Stuff like that is quite educational and cannot be practised or demonstrated IRL, so it might be interesting to show what happens if you damage the plane and how you deal with the damage on the ground or in the air.

Also contrary to Hollywood myths accidents and even leaking fuel in general do NOT result in a firey inferno. In fact it’s actually quite rare.

Most will agree that the current ways of either having the flight reset without comment after any small accident or having no damage at all, are both unsatisfactory.

The way WB Sim have implented damage is very good and I’m glad they did. Engine damage is also modelled on several planes already. So even if Asobo and MS continue to refuse, others obviously don’t.

This will never happen. The aircraft manufacturers would never in a million years license it. I suspect most of the big manufactures won’t even allow their planes to look dirty far less damaged.

The other issue is crash damage physics are very hungry on processor power. In a sim where resources are already tight its just not going to ever be a thing.

1 Like

Weak argument…dream on though.
Btw there is software that will tell you about your landing. All the “learning” comes from stats, not animations.

1 Like

In what way is it a weak argument? Please elaborate?

Don’t know about you, but from personal instructing experience (not in aviation) I can assure you that most people learn from experience (mostly from mistakes), not from facts.

Experiencing a mistake and seeing the result is what makes an impression. It creates frustration, confusion, disappointment, shock or even fear. And powerful emotions create powerful memories.

Reading it on a data sheet created by analythical software is just data: it is purely theoretical and has little emotional impact on most people. Personally I have absolutely no interest in checking data after a crash in MSFS. What I would like to see is an instant replay from the cockpit and the outside to see what went wrong.

I realise there are people in the world out there who experience that differently and mainly learn from theory, but it’s a very small minority.

Put it like this, the NTSB doesn’t rely on video…variables and data my man. From a gamer perspective i hear you…but this isn’t a game, and IRL (assuming you survived) you would need to physically leave the aircraft to see this damage. Best to keep your eyes on the displays/gauges because that’s where the real problem stems from. So what exactly do you want…maybe you want a ntsb addon where the plane directly after crash goes to the hanger where visual damage can be inspected? (Again won’t happen because of legalities)
I’d rather see birdstrikes

Also, how would this effect multiplayer with unusable runways stacked with crashed ac’s? It’d probably turn into Crash (1996), not that 2004 ■■■■.
For about a week after launch I had the same “wish” do to the fact that i mostly game and it’s a game engine variable to have crash damage and explosions…that wore off quick and forced me to sim instead of game.

What do I care what the NTSB wants? This is not about scientific reconstruction days, months or even years later. If I set a C172 down to hard on the ground and damaged the gear, I wouldn’t need the NTSB to tell me what happened. I’d most likely see the moment I stopped the plane.

I get the impression we’re talking about different things here:

My reasons for the damage are about first hand experience and an immediate learning effect from an immediate mistake I make in a training situation.
Of course I would have to leave the plane to see the damage. That’s the whole point. That’s what I would do in real life as well, wouldn’t I (assuming I were physically able to)?
And it’s true of course that the problem most likely stems for whoever’s in the cockpit. And again: that’s the whole point. If I DIDN’T make a mistake, I wouldn’t have to check for damage anyway. That’s why I would want to have the opportunity to revisit my mistake - ideally with a replay - and at least see some obvious damage on the aircraft. Nothing sensational like a crumpled fuselage drilled into the ground, dead passengers burning to a crisp or the Wasp engine flying 50m away from the aircraft. A damage model like that would indeed serve little purpose and most likely would kill FPS anyway (like it did when Beam.NG drive came out).

This kind of training experience would not be possible IRL obviously: stuff like (and I repeat myself) landing too hard and having the landing gear give out, or trying to land in a crosswind and bending the wing.
I don’t need numbers or an NTSB team for that. I need to see whether I actually STRUCK the ground with the wing, or whether I managed to keep the plane steady enough to avoid damage. Because in the heat of the action as long as I’m watching my instruments the chance that I look outside at the right moment to see the wing touch the ground is miniscule and in an airliner I wouldn’t be able to see the wings anyway.
It’s similar with the landing gear. The way the sim works at the moment you can either switch on aircraft damage and have the sim simply end the flight if you hit the ground too hard - which I find unrealistic and frustratingly abrupt. Also the end screen won’t tell you what went wrong. Or you can leave damage off and will never be sure if you would have damaged the gear or not.

It’s all about the smaller every day accidents NOT about the catastrophes. Emergency landings in a field or on water, wheel-up landings, tailstrikes, wing strikes, prop damage, maybe windshield damage and YES, also bird strikes, why not. Stuff like that.

AGAIN: I’m NOT talking about a scientific thesis on the accident. I’m NOT talking about a comprehensive damage model showing every little bent piece of metal or plastic. I’m NOT talking about littering the runway and surrounding areas with crumpled wrecks and corpses just for the fun of it. I’m NOT talking about fire or explosions, NEITHER am I talking about unrealistic arcade stuff or other nonsense people could be up to.
I’m reasonably sure I had made that clear previously.

Also there’s little point in talking about legalities or whether the aircraft manufacturer would object. First of all: we have absolutely no idea whether that’s even a thing: it’s all supposition. And second: we already HAVE planes that show structural damage like collapsed landing gears or bent propellers. And when we can have engine damage, I see no reason not to have gear or wing damage as well.

2 Likes

In “smaller every day accidents” the damage is found during inspection by mechanics…some of it is found with xray…not visible by looking at the exterior…so it’s sounding like you want “ntsb” level details…cause if it’s not bent wings and explosions then it’ll be fuel leak from rivet points or hydraulic fluid leak, airframe crack, or wrinkled wing skin…
So what are you wanting to be visualized? How about a simple red arrow that points to the area affected ? Is that good enough? No? Ok what do you want to have visualized, for how long and where?

:Aircraft Special Inspection (after overweight or hard landing)

The structural stress induced by a landing depends not only upon the gross weight at the time, but also upon the severity of impact. The hard landing inspection is for hard landings at or below the maximum design landing limits. An overweight landing inspection must be performed when an airplane lands at a weight above the maximum design landing weight. However, because of the difficulty in estimating vertical velocity at the time of contact, it is hard to judge whether or not a landing has been sufficiently severe to cause structural damage. For this reason, a special inspection is performed after a landing is made at a weight known to exceed the design landing weight or after a rough landing, even though the latter may have occurred when the aircraft did not exceed the design landing weight.

Wrinkled wing skin is the most easily detected sign of an excessive load having been imposed during a landing. Another indication easily detected is fuel leakage along riveted seams. Other possible locations of damage are spar webs, bulkheads, nacelle skin and attachments, firewall skin, and wing and fuselage stringers. If none of these areas show adverse effects, it is reasonable to assume that no serious damage has occurred. If damage is detected, a more extensive inspection and alignment check may be necessary.

Hmm … I had the impression I made abundantly clear what I do want and do not want and gave multiple examples.

You’re either really still not getting what I am talking about - or you’re trolling.

Either way, I am out of this conversation. It no longer serves any purpose and the only thing I could do is repeat myself over and over - again.

You said:

“The point is having an actual indication whether a landing was too hard or whether the wing actually touched the ground or what happens if you overstress the plane. Accidents happen every day and I think it’s important to know what they can result in in order to learn from them from the safety of your office chair.
Stuff like that is quite educational and cannot be practised or demonstrated IRL, so it might be interesting to show what happens if you damage the plane and how you deal with the damage on the ground or in the air.”

"Most will agree that the current ways of either having the flight reset without comment after any small accident or having no damage at all, are both unsatisfactory.

The way WB Sim have implented damage is very good and I’m glad they did. Engine damage is also modelled on several planes already. So even if Asobo and MS continue to refuse, others obviously don’t."

“Experiencing a mistake and seeing the result is what makes an impression. It creates frustration, confusion, disappointment, shock or even fear. And powerful emotions create powerful memories.”

So, from what YOU typed i think I’m correct what you are asking for from the sim.

And no, not trolling, but maybe you are …flying with crash detection OFF asking to “see” if you crashed or not and how bad…yeah ok

Sorry,. but unless you can supply hard numbers (which I know you cannot), the “Hungry on Processor Power” is just utter nonsense !!

Unfortunately, a lot of things get stated here in this forum, that just are not true, but lead others to get a false impression of what are facts.

1 Like

Do you seriously think all those complex crash damage physics calculations would come at no cost?