This is not a bug or issue report it is more of an observation and a suggestion for improvement:

First of all I like that we now finally get an Aircraft from Ini that has a dynamic failure setting and we don't have to pick ourselves what fails when like we have to on the A350 (hopefully this will carry over to V2?)

However the likelíhood of something going wrong is hugely exaggerated. I assume this was done to prevent support tickets from people complaining that despite them setting everything to dynmaic, nothing ever happens.

After all in reality failures, especially bigger ones like engine failures, are very, very rare and a simmer who does fly only a fraction of the flighthours that a real pilot does on the type would probably never experience any ever.

But however your system calculates likelihood, it needs strong adjustment in my opinion. I have done only two flights, both times using the jump ahead feature, and I had something happen on each flight already.

On the first it was a fuel leak on the second an engine failure.

While I don't have anything against ramping up the rate at which something fails compared to real life, that is just ludicrously excessive.

So I suggest you change the algorithm that calculates whether something fails and make it more believable. I can't think of a specific ratio compared to real life overall, but depending on the part of the aircraft my gut tells me it shouldn't be more than 4 times more likely.

Edited Thursday at 04:58 PM1 day by Farlis

I would have to agree with this, Last night I decided to turn on most of the failures to dynamic including bird strikes. My first flight after turning those options on I got a bird strike at v1. While cool it seems overly aggressive like mentioned.

42 minutes ago, Farlis said:

This is not a bug or issue report it is more of an observation and a suggestion for improvement:

First of all I like that we now finally get an Aircraft from Ini that has a dynamic failure setting and we don't have to pick ourselves what fails when like we have to on the A350 (hopefully this will carry over to V2?)

However the likelíhood of something going wrong is hugely exaggerated. I assume this was done to prevent support tickets from people complaining that despite them setting everything to dynmaic, nothing ever happens.

After all in reality failures, especially bigger ones like engine failures, are very, very rare and a simmer who does fly only a fraction of the flighthours that a real pilot does on the type would probably never experience any ever.

But however your system calculates likelihood, it needs strong adjustment in my opinion. I have done only two flights, both times using the jump ahead feature, and I had something happen on each flight already.

On the first it was a fuel leak on the second an engine failure.

While I don't have anything against ramping up the rate at which something fails compared to real life, that is just ludicrously excessive.

So I suggest you change the algorithm that calculates whether something fails and make it more believable. I can't think of a specific ratio compared to real life overall, but depending on the part of the aircraft my gut tells me it shouldn't be more than 4 times more likely.

Hi,

Thanks for your detailed suggestion! Will pass along to the team for further review.

Thanks again!

2 hours ago, sultan.of.swing said:

I would have to agree with this, Last night I decided to turn on most of the failures to dynamic including bird strikes. My first flight after turning those options on I got a bird strike at v1. While cool it seems overly aggressive like mentioned.

100% agree, I turned it all on dynamic thinking it would be based off real service levels, I got 3 failures in 10 minutes...