Please allow devs to have access to the wear and tear integrity levels for free flight so this way we can create failures with ease since we already have the career mode wear and tear implemented. Not having access to the integrity makes no sense. The debugger for wear and tear has a slider that works perfectly. So a simple override for this will be great just for free flight. Then it would make sense to have this entire wear and tear system for everything not just career. Devs can still write their own logic but it’s becoming harder with so many changes and to just use the built in system will make it less time the dev has to spend on each project.
Bumping this for greater visibility by all so that perhaps we can get more votes.
The simulation variable WEAR AND TEAR LEVEL could be made writable.
This shouldn’t be a difficult change to implement, and such a change would greatly help the developer community. Many of us already create our own failures, detailed and intricate, with our own implementations of how to communicate those failures to the end user. Allowing us to manipulate WEAR AND TEAR LEVEL would help create greater consistency across a wider range of aircraft, while easing workload for developers and allowing us to create a more immersive experience.
It may be conceivable that Asobo doesn’t want to make this writable in case it interferes with Career Mode - they may not want the possibility of aircraft purposely blocking or resetting the wear and tear values, and that’s understandable. However, the solution for that would be simple as well: Only allow the WEAR AND TEAR LEVEL variable to be written to in Free Flight.
1 Like
I’m adding my VOTE for this too!
Wear and tear (as well as all other systems currently locked out due to career mode) should be writable in free flight (things like chocks as just another example). This gives us developers far more flexibility in how our aircraft behave. Currently, many of us aren’t even using the wear and tear system specifically because we can’t fully control it and this is a shame since it shows great potential.
1 Like
It’s been awhile, but I’d like to bump this suggestion yet again.
I really don’t see any downside to this at all - only net positives for the entire community, allowing us to create aircraft features that combine existing depth and ingenuity with simulator compatibility.
The entire preflight system, for starters, would suddenly become much more than just a nicely-done curiosity!
The developer community can recognize these areas that Asobo has put a great deal of attention into, and it seems like a shame that they’re going to waste - which they are, when we’re locked out of them.
1 Like