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.
