High G loads does not result in any structural failure
-
I’d like to open a discussion regarding load factor (or G-limits) behavior in the Bonanza Professional.
While flying at maximum speed, with the airspeed indicator well into the yellow arc, I noticed that applying high G loads does not result in any structural failure or crash. From a real-world perspective, this seems inconsistent, as exceeding the structural load limits at high airspeeds should normally lead to airframe damage or failure.
I was wondering whether this behavior is intentional — for example, a design choice, a limitation of the simulator, or a setting related to realism or damage modeling — or if it is something that might be refined further.
I’m not reporting this as a complaint, just trying to better understand how load factors and structural limits are currently modeled in the Bonanza Professional.
Thanks in advance for any clarification.
Best Regards.
-
The issue is that the MSFS "Airframe Structural Damage" setting interprets an open door or window in flight as an instant catastrophic failure; therefore, most users know that they need to have this option disabled with addon aircraft, at least if they want to open a window. Since this is the same setting that causes high G-load to be registered as a crash, then we all just live knowing that pulling 12 G's in a Bonanza is not a great idea. I understand that might not be entirely satisfying, but I'm afraid it's the best I can do with the MSFS crash detection system.
-
The issue is that the MSFS "Airframe Structural Damage" setting interprets an open door or window in flight as an instant catastrophic failure; therefore, most users know that they need to have this option disabled with addon aircraft, at least if they want to open a window. Since this is the same setting that causes high G-load to be registered as a crash, then we all just live knowing that pulling 12 G's in a Bonanza is not a great idea. I understand that might not be entirely satisfying, but I'm afraid it's the best I can do with the MSFS crash detection system.
@Black-Square Thank you for the clear and honest explanation — that makes perfect sense now.
I understand the limitation of MSFS using a single, rather crude crash detection system for multiple failure cases, and why this forces a compromise.While it’s not entirely satisfying from a realism standpoint, I appreciate the transparency and the fact that this is a platform limitation rather than a design choice.
Thanks again for taking the time to explain it in detail.
