In truth, I do realise that the FSReborn FSR 500 is exceptional value and I imagine fairly difficult to match price-wise so I do ākind-ofā understand.
As I have said, the PC-12 from what I have seen (Q8 Pilot stream) does look good already and should be a great product āas isā.
Anyway, I wish you all the best with the launch which I am sure will be very successful based on your previous products. I myself though will be waiting for the full package for the reasons I have outlined but I will be waiting in anticipation and probably some impatience
Iām scratching my head, what can be damaged except the engine, which is pretty difficult on a turboprop btw (except during start up).
Overtorque, overtemp failures are already included in many sim aircraft as a standard feature.
Thatās pretty basic, very easy to simulate and it shouldnāt cost anything.
Some cases of overheat or overtorque are easy to make, just like in the Kodiak where they are either due to component age or abuse. Where we want to go is what some others have said, such as old oil or a clogged fuel filter.
The concept is not to make aircraft mechanics out of it but give the pilot the indication that something is wrong so they can ātake it to maintenanceā. If they donāt it could come back and bite them at some point.
Well, they ARE on a checklistā¦ just not your typical preflight oneā¦
(Unless you like flying round engines, especially R4360ās )
Iām not arguing with you, just saying I appreciate maintaining my aircraft in the sim. A lot cheaper here than in real life.
I almost bought a Lycoming GO-480 powered plane (Piaggio P.149), thereās an engine that really needs failure modeling in the sim. (AT-Simulations did a nice job simulating the way the engine works, btw). I didnāt end up purchasing it because the guy who test flew it before me killed the gear box and it needed a $70K overhaul.
Itās sounding like itās basically going to be a better version than the one we have now (by our friends from Carenado, which really isnāt all that bad, in my opinion anyway).
And thatās great, thatās exactly what I was hoping for.
Iām talking failiure modeling in general, not just on this specific aircraft.
There are quite a few things that can go wrong:
Blown tires on hard landing, flaps or gear damage when lowering them at too high airspeeds, damaged avionics when turning them on before cranking the engine (thatās an old aircraft problem and shouldnāt be an issue on modern ones), not paying attention to proper oil pressure, using high RPM when the engine and the oil is still cold (piston engine problem). Not paying attention to oil levels. Burning out the starter when cranking it for too long on a piston engine (only an issue when the proper engine start problems are simulated as well). The list goes on ā¦
Even FSX had gear and flap damage by default when exeeding the limiting speeds. Except for the blown tires (a great DCS feature) and the avionics everything else is engine related.
Oil temp is important for jet engines as well.
Does this mean itāll fail like the Kodiak does, i.e. you can still blow up the engine with a bad startup sequence? Or is that part of the later custom failure stuff?
A developer can do what they like as far as Iām concerned, and itās always interesting to see different approaches to product development.
Not to derail this in any way, but one thing missing from this discussion on āfailureā is actual data on mechanical (and other) failureās and how they fit into the overall safety of GA and by extension all aviation. Relying on anecdotal evidence about āfailureā and how it fits into the accident spectrum is a bit fuzzy, considering the accident rate in GA is not good atm and itās important to be accurate.
Aviation is nothing if not all about the numbers.
These are US only, and would be interesting to compile a global look:
āAnd what can go wrong mostly means the engine. Airplane engines may be a lot more reliable than they were 75 years ago, but they are still the number one cause of mechanical accidentsāover 60% in 2018. To put that in perspective, a powerplant problem is behind only loss of control on landing on the list of top accident causes (see chart below). Remember, this excludes fuel management problems, so weāre talking about true power loss, either partial or complete. This happened 117 times in 2018, accounting for roughly 10% of all non-commercial fixed-wing accidents.ā
Personally I will be waiting for the āfull packageā version and see how in-depth the failures/simulations are before purchasing. Even as someone who has zero interest in practicing any failure procedures, after flying (spoiled by) the A2A Comanche, itās just such a great experience to have a brand new dimension when flying. Itās no long click 1-2-3-4 switches ā fly ā sight seeing ->land.
Having things that can worn out and fail as a direct result of your action as well as natural wear and tear adds so much enjoyment and immersion into flight simming. I used to only fly airliners but recently been flying so much GA (mostly A2A) due to this and I have zero problem paying āairliner priceā for the A2A piper because there is way more enjoyment.
I fly exclusively on VATSIM and having to deal with an engine fire or similar after spending 20 minutes on the ground getting clearance, programming the 750, starting up the engines, taxiing etc. is just a pain in the butt. Professional simmers still fly within the limits even if there are no simulated failures so I donāt really have an issue with it.
Are people aware that failures irl are extremely rare ?
The funnier part would be that people wants failures but most of them will just turn them off so.
They might be rare, but they do happen. Thatās why real pilots should use any chance to practice failures and the relevant procedures to deal with them in a safe, simulated environment. Thatās also why it worries me, when a real pilot says that he has no interest in simulated failures. Survivorās Bias and complaceny at its finest (āI never had a failure, so I donāt need to prepare for themā).
