Feature question fokker 70/100
-
I came here to ask if there is a failure system planned... For me it is a "no buy" without failures. It feels like a waste of time watching parameters or completing procedures when there is zero chance for anything going wrong. The RJ and 146 are so much more immersive in that regard.
I also would pay extra for a MTBF system. Why not make it optional?
-
I'm in line with all what was said. No buy for me if no failure system. Will stay on the RJ which is so great.
I know that adding that feature is more work, but developing aircraft with so much detailed systems during several years is a waste of time... on the product pages we often have very long list of all what is simulated in detail.... and knowing it won't fail seems a bit useless....
We can play with the systems to see how it works and react and see how well it's implemented... but we don't do that on every fligh
-
I'll add my voice to the chorus of those asking for failures; especially pilot-induced ones. An aircraft of such high fidelity should punish you for making serious mistakes. Hot starts, blown tires, etc. Especially on an older aircraft with fewer automated protections against such errors. Also, I see that state saving is intended, based on the EFB options, and one of the great uses of that is maintenance simulation.
It's a great aircraft, and I'm absolutey enjoying it. -
@Skrelk said in Feature question fokker 70/100:
I have a strict no failures, no buy policy
Yes, I follow the same.
-
If there are no failures then why even simulate it all on such a deep level? I say yes add them. It brings an older aircraft fully to life especially if it's a wear and tear system that reacts to how you handle the aircraft. I would even pay extra for a system like this
-
I think they will do it. I can't wait to keep focus on it, checking engine vibration, checking oil levels, checking oil pressures etc..
-
I think they will do it. I can't wait to keep focus on it, checking engine vibration, checking oil levels, checking oil pressures etc..
@SwissairMD11 I am not do sure if they do it. It was already said that they might think about it if there is demand (as it was for the RJ/146).
Maybe if we show interest here in the forum (in a respectful and civilzed way) -
@SwissairMD11 I am not do sure if they do it. It was already said that they might think about it if there is demand (as it was for the RJ/146).
Maybe if we show interest here in the forum (in a respectful and civilzed way)We do need to stay indeed civil and respectfull, these guys worked hard on it, and that must be said! I knew from the get go that I would not fly this plane much without a failure system, but I bought it anyway to show my respect and support to the efforts that has been made by the developers. But because of that it will be a "hangar queen" most of the time.
-
Hello @Martyn. Congratulations on the release of your F70 and F100. I've been having a great time using them so far (as I have too with the RJ, 146 and F28).
Just a quick note here to express my support and request for the addition of some form of failures system. For me, having a sense that something might happen during each flight and a need to be vigilant really does add to the sense of immersion and brings the product "alive". Something along the lines of MTBF failures and randomised failures would be more than enough to provide this depth to your product.
I do hope you'll consider it. Thanks. -
I agree with majority of you guys. Failures is the best way for us to experience systems Deph, besides giving us more reasons to study it and be more prepared to fly the JF product.
-
Let's start a survey amongst customers to see who's interested in extended failures even as a payware option to determine if it's value to develop it or not.
-
It's not so much a question of "do we have failures or don't we", but rather how deep the system simulation is. To me, deep system simulation means the systems need to behave realistically when things go wrong or when a pilot mistake is made. Like others have said above, what's the point of coding deep system fidelity if nothing is ever out of the ordinary. And by that I don't just mean catastrophic events that force you to land immediately. It's more like the little things that happen on a daily basis in airline operations. Chances for a hot start, HYD pressure that can drop for whatever reason, INS issues, a pack that runs hot... just things so that system monitoring and checklists have meaning. Without that, it's hard to enjoy deep system simulation, because there's no reason for it to exist when no parameter can ever go out of line.
So yes, please, add system failures, errors, acting up, randomness. I have no problem with paying extra for this. It's just that flying with knowing nothing can ever go wrong is, how should I say, not very fulfilling.
