DGIV DGIV Random Technical Failures?

[PriestLizard]

Hi there.

Few moments ago I just wanted to play arround a bit and planned a take-off from Widawika (speeling?) airport (the island add-on). I started like usual, throttle up to 100%... waiting for vel=160 to rotate. I started to pitch up and immediatly after my wheels left the ground I saw "hover failure" and "gear failure" alarm! The wheels were broken and the hover engines too.

Now I wonder: was this some kind of "random technical failure" which is intended? Or did I do something wrong?

However if its NOT a random technical failure - why not implement that feature? I always thought its sad that such things like emergency battery etc. are quite useless because you never need them. Any info about that?

see you and happy orbiting

 

[MeDiCS]

Wideawake?

You probably was too fast, and you weels got ripped off the ship

Umm, random failures should be fun...

 

[Kaito]

You were going to fast, and probably had the hover doors open. Make sure the hover doors are closed, and as for take off, when she says "v1" then try to take off

 

[PriestLizard]

Alright. Probably I was just a little bit too careless.

However: do you know if DanSteph plans to implement some kind of random failure feature? I think it would be nice.

 

[Kaito]

The only Addon I know that implements random failure is AMSO. But I agree, it would be interesting to have.

 

[the.punk]

Yes. Random failure would be a coll feature.

 

[RisingFury]

I think the desired velocity is 160 knots, not 160 m/s.

You probably reached 200 m/s or whatever is required to break the gear off... and you probably weren't off the ground yet, so when the gear broke, you dropped down and touched the ground, which broke your hover door covers...

 

[Dig Gil]

I would disable it. I don't want to pay for what I haven't done. It would be nasty to take off and notice the alarm.

 

[jinglesassy]

i would like it but also make it enable and disable able.

 

[Nemoricus]

Definitely.

Having a realistic damage model is fine. It makes you responsible for your actions. A random failure model can be annoying and frustrating to users who just want to have a good time. However, it does have its place in increasing realism and challenge for those who desire it.

Personally, I'd fly with random failures off unless I'm looking for a particularly challenging flight.

 

[tblaxland]

The only Addon I know that implements random failure is AMSO.

NASSP 7 Beta has them also: http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Random_failures_scenario

 

[Quick_Nick]

NASSP 7 Beta has them also: http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Random_failures_scenario

And the Mercury addon should also, though I've never seen it actually work.

 

[ijuin]

I tend to rotate and retract the gear at 100 m/s. If you're waiting for 160 m/s, then you are probably cutting it too close to the gear's maximum tolerance.

 

[Jer95]

I tend to rotate and retract the gear at 100 m/s. If you're waiting for 160 m/s, then you are probably cutting it too close to the gear's maximum tolerance.

Well.. According to the vessel limitation chart the dynamic pressure is 11.22 in of mercury and on the ground the gear collapses at 350 mph.. maybe because of friction on the ground

 

[ijuin]

Um, maybe we should pick a measurement system and stick with it? All this going back and forth between Metric and English units is confusing.

 

[Eccentrus]

Just pick the International Standard so that anyone can be familiar with it...

 

[RisingFury]

I think random failures would be cool. I don't think they'd be annoying - they wouldn't exactly happen every 5 minutes.

Just think about having to take an UMMU on an EVA to fix the micrometeorite damage, having to re-route hydraulics around the damaged area, finding the hole where your cabin is leaking or even continuing with one engine after one has exploded or shut down.

I think it would make things very interesting on your way to Jupiter

 

[the.punk]

I think random failures would be cool. I don't think they'd be annoying - they wouldn't exactly happen every 5 minutes.

Just think about having to take an UMMU on an EVA to fix the micrometeorite damage, having to re-route hydraulics around the damaged area, finding the hole where your cabin is leaking or even continuing with one engine after one has exploded or shut down.

I think it would make things very interesting on your way to Jupiter

Yes. That would be cool. But then there must also be a repair function how you said. Because otherwise your trip would be no fun or your trip would just end during to many random damages. But with a repair function it would be fun.

Random failures would also be cool during take-off or landing when you must do an emergency landing with no gear or such.

 

[ijuin]

Also there should be a checkbox in the configuration to enable/disable the random failures.

 

[Tomato3017]

Dan Steph, You should implement this into DGIV as it would be a very welcome addition.

I already simulate failures myself like turning off 1 of the engines during the early stage of an ascent. It's cool to turn on the auto gimbal computer and gun it to make a very long 1 engine ascent :lol: