On the one hand, yes many don’t care for failures and thus, why should they pay for all the extra complexity.
But I think the outcome of this experiment will be that commercially it makes more sense to develop basic aircraft only. I fear only perhaps 10% of PC12 buyers will pay for the failures. So I very much fear that SWS and other devs will simply decide it’s not worth it and the aircraft market just diverges down, perhaps not quite all the way to captain sim levels, but to “good enough” planes ala Carenado.
My hangar is full too. I have tons of planes thare are “good enough”, but I don’t feel particularly motivated to fly them. I hope my fellow flightsimmers support the advanced module and show the devs it’s worth it to go the extra mile.
I don’t understand the obsession with maintenance and failures.
Failures like in A2A planes occur way too frequently (and there are questionable failures as well.)
In >17000hrs of flying I’ve never experienced a failure on a GA plane. They are being serviced every few flight hours and as a pilot I have zero interest in maintenance, neither IRL, nor in the sim.
Whether flight simmers support the advanced module though might also be dependant on how much SWS charge for the module. If it’s going to cost a lot then it’s fairly safe to say that not many simmers will buy it. The outcome of the ‘experiment’ (if that’s what it is ???) is dependant a lot also on financial aspects and the amount charged.
With or without failures, what I don’t quite understand is the need to be approved by the manufacturer.
Have all of the hundreds of airplanes available for MSFS had to be approved by the manufacturers?..Even the vintage ones?
I only conclude that for some unexplained reason an ending that was announced to be imminent months ago is being postponed (yes, the great photos are appreciated).
Well, it’s nothing serious either, after all it’s a game.
It’s part of learning how an aircraft works and the possibility of random failures (however slim the chances) keeps you on your toes and gives you an actual reason to monitor the gauges.
Also, it’s not just about random failures. It’s about learning how to operate an aircraft correctly, because operating outside the limits will lead to damages. This makes simulated flying more engaging and more interesting.
All this might bore a real pilot like you, but for many of us who will never be real pilots, because of financial, medical or other reasons, it’s part of the experience. Aircraft that lack these features are still fun, but simply not on the same level of enjoyment and excitement.
give me this bit extra and give me a good reason to fly the ACs carefully and within book figures
I will take this excellent pass and ask a question, not to you, but everyone: what makes an aircraft high fidelity? Or better yet, what is the point of flight simulation?
Is the flight simulation endgame to feed the computer numbers, let it fly and check if the cruise speed and landing distance match the numbers? Is it, perhaps, blowing up the odd engine because fuel was opened at 0.5% Ng less than you should have? Are the flight models just a list of performance tables that must be matched?
If you ask me, that is important but comes second to the actual FLIGHT simming. What about the feel of the plane, its response to engine inputs, its handling qualities? What could be the consequences of forgetting the yaw damper on for final approach?
Many of you will remember when the Kodiak didnt have failures, but lots of planes crashed left of the runway on take off. That if you don’t know your CG, if you don’t set your trim correctly and don’t respect your V-speeds, the plane will get you back to earth.
To put the PC-12 in the frame, I was talking with the YouTubers about their failed landings and explained them why they ended up over-correcting and skating or crashing on landing. Most of the time it was because they unconsciously assumed that the plane flies like everything else, it just results in a different cruise speed and take-off roll.
The PC-12 will put the focus back on flying. Yes, everything works properly in it, regardless if it can be broken. And while it is easy to fly once you learn its quirks, until then it will bring forth all the bad piloting habits and break them without failing a system. That’s what we are pivoting to: first learn to fly the machine, then break it.
I agree that the feel of the plane and everything you mention above is of primary importance.
The thing is that I already have a bunch of high quality 3rd party AC that already give me this. Most of these are now left in the hangar with no motivation to fly them however.
I now want a bit more from future AC purchases and more of a reason to fly them. The A2A Comanche, FSReborn F500, BS TBM 850 and PMDG 737 all give me what you mention above but all go ‘the extra mile’ and give me more.
We are looking at about 25-30€ for base. The failure module price is TBD but the combo should be in the high 30s to low 40s.
The FSR500 price is one we can’t match. Raul is a one-man army doing it in his spare time.
I’m cool with this model and I guess we’ll see how it works out. I usually keep failures off until I have a bunch of hours in the plane so I’m not wondering if I messed up and broke something or if there is a bug. This will let me get used to the plane first. It’s a risk that people don’t upgrade to failures though. They might find some other new shiny thing down the road when the failure upgrade comes out and not pay the addon. Hopefully it doesn’t end up not being worth it profit wise for all the additional hours spent on the failure upgrade module.
It’s not so much that I want failures to happen… I’d like to see wear occur that needs maintenance. Like oil burning off or getting old, spark plugs (if I would even fly often enough that spark plugs need changing?), etc…
I do want to do my walk around, I want to have to do maintenance, and I do want to know that if I abuse my engine or plane, it will fail.
But, yeah, I don’t want random failures for no reason. I’ve only got 250 hours flying, but, yeah, in today’s planes, failures are pretty rare. But they do happen. I know people who’ve had cylinder failures. I don’t know what precipitated them.
