General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Next military jet for acceleration
virtuali:
--- Quote from: jimi08 on May 19, 2008, 05:28:55 am ---Again, the whole "backseat concept" sounds cool in the designing phase, but I really don't think it will do so hot in the real world. I think most of you guys have the mentality that "I will be flying the jet, while the "other guy" will be in the back handling the instruments/systems." With everyone having that mentality, there will not be many people that will be regular or skilled Radar Intercept Officers.
--- End quote ---
By the same reasoning, we might as well say that services like VATSIM or IVAO should have failed, because "everybody" is only interested in flying, and nobody would want to play as a radar controller.
--- Quote ---If Microsoft tries put all the "bells and whistles" on it, such as FLIR, LANTIRN and the tons of moving control surfaces that are on the Tomcat, it's going to be a memory hog and kill frame rates for many players in the multiplayer sessions.
--- End quote ---
Apart for the fact that the system you cited are not needed as long we don't have weapons (nobody complained of their absence in the F/A-18), the number of moving surfaces in a model doesn't have anything to do with the multiplayer performance. I hope you don't really think FSX transmit the whole model or animated part in real time over the net! The only thing that gets transmitted is the actual EVENT (flaps, ailerons, etc) and that has exactly the same impact, regardless if the model it's a C172 or a 747. Since each player has his own copy of the model, fact the event arrived via multiplayer or via local keyboard, doesn't change much.
--- Quote ---FSX is for civilian/corporate flying not combat dogfighting.
--- End quote ---
By this reasoning, we might very well eliminate this whole section, forget about military airplanes in FSX, and stop talking about it, because it doesn't make much sense as long as we don't have weapons.
Instead, funny enough, THIS section is the most visited on our website. Apparently, people ARE interested in military jets used in FSX.
--- Quote ---The moment Microsoft starts adding guns and missiles to FSX, it then becomes a GAME and not a SIMULATOR
--- End quote ---
No, it might become a more complete simulator, instead.
Anyway, don't be worried, because MS doesn't have any intention for the foreseeable future to add weapons to FSX. And that's because of ESRB ratings.
--- Quote ---That's why a lot of old-fashioned MSFS guys weren't too happy about the Acceleration Pack because they say it made sim feel more like a game vs. a sim
--- End quote ---
No, those guys were complaining in advance *before* even seeing Acceleration and before having the slightest idea how the missions would have been.
If there is something that Acceleration proved, is that you STILL remain focused on simulation, even when adding some kind a competitive element like missions, and you can have a military jet (like F/A-18) that is still interesting to use just for training and navigation, even without firing a single shot, which is what a real world military pilot does most of the time anyway...
--- Quote ---Again, if Microsoft makes another Combat Flight Simulator utilizing modern aircraft, the Tomcat would be a MUST in my book. But not for FSX.
--- End quote ---
The same might be said for the F/A-18, and for any other airplane that is supposed to carry any kind of weapon. It doesn't have any sense because, if we follow this reasoning, the only military airplanes allowed in FSX should be trainers, but I don't think Acceleration would have sold much, if it came with a T-38 in place of the F/A-18...
JamesChams:
Gents,
I would love to see the Tomcat in the complexity of the Helo video you posted. I think it will give us plently of hours of enjoyment and education for youngsters of all ages. I liked the F/A-18 for that reason too; and is wasn't too difficult for the novice to get in it in a mission and just press CTRL-L to power it up. FS allows a lot of the necessary shortcuts to enable users of all ages to toy with things at their desired skill level. So, I can get in a do a startup by proceedures and someone else can just click CTRL-L instead if they want to. That's the beauty of FSX.
Virtuali Staff,
Please make it as complex as you can with all the "bells and whistles" - it might stretch your abilities, but it will only add to your already highly-developed skills. Moreover, it will make our fun long-lasting. Personally, I fly for a living, and in the sim I get to do things I could never do in any multi-million dollar jet or turbo-prop. I would love to not get bored with a toy replica that doesn't do a whole lot. Also, many of them don't work at-all in many areas; like most of the aircraft put out by companies like IRIS or AlphaSim. I don't mean to bash their great efforts. But they're obviously not going to be able to do these kinds of things for much longer. People are already getting tired of the Sexy-looking external model jets that have cockpits that aren't depicted correctly, the flight models don't fly correctly, or the overall package is riddled with FSX incompatiblities and non-functional gauges. I don't like to have to pay for "half-A@@ed" work. So, choosing to make the F-14, because of the availability of documentation and making it complex enough to allow for time to learn and enjoy it is a great thing. Who wants to pay for another toy that we will get bored with in a week or so and stop using. No! So, please make the F-14 be good-looking, with great/accurate cockpit functionality, and as complex as the FSX world allows (allowing for a FS shortcuts for novices/youngsters).
Thank you for your consideration.
FACT: Most people using FS want Military aircraft in FS will the Combat Sim capabilities and FS capabilities combined.
jimi08:
...yeah...I like what Chams said, but do it within a different realm of military aviation. Landing a jet on a boat has been covered (for the most part). The way I see it, the only reason the Tomcat is really being considered is because it so popular. It really doesnt bring anything new to the table. But seeing how you are so defensive on this post, I am guessing you guys have already started getting you hands dirty on making a F-14.
FACT: Your fact is wrong. There are a ton of sessions on the multiplayer that say "NO HORNETS or MILITARY AIRCRAFT", and they are usually the sessions that are a little more based on realism (i.e. Virtual Airlines/Pro ATC). I doubt that's because they want combat and sim capabilities combined. Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE FAN of military avaition and it played a huge role in my commission in the Navy, but the mindset that most people have when they jump into a fighter/attack aircraft is to do dogfights and bombing runs. That aspect needs to be seperated from those who jump in a session with a Cessna wanting to practice ATC calls and procedure for an upcoming checkride.
Virtuali:
I love the product that you guys created with the Hornet, and I have no doubt that you guys will make an incredible Tomcat as well. It's because of your Hornet, that I have such a bad addiction to FSX. I typically spend 3-4 hours a day flying and practicing formation flying/maneuvers. And I can't tell you how many times I will have people constantly zoom right through the middle of our formation with full burners and smoke on. It's to the point were I usually have to turn the Collision option off because it would only be a matter of time before someone comes and plows into my aircraft. Now imagine how the virtual airline guy or the young gentleman who is practicing for his checkride would feel after his aircraft gets shot down out of the sky after his 2 hour commute.
As far your comment about this section being the most visited on your site...I think it's a cry from the public that it's time you guys and microsoft get together make a highly realistic and detailed (like FSX) COMBAT SIMULATOR which utilizes modern military aircraft in which you guys can make continuous addons for. That way if guys want to fly formation in F-16s over Edwards AFB, they can. If they want to do a bombing mission over a modern warzone with an A-10, they can. If they want to conduct a carrier training mission in the F-14, they can. Point is, if they want to blow stuff up, they can! It doens't have to be simulated or imagined. Seeing the missle flying off the jet or seeing the explosion of the paveway is much more gratifiying than having to imagine it. And it could all be done, without upsetting the "private/corporate/commercial" side of the simulatoion world.
SUBS17:
--- Quote from: jimi08 on May 19, 2008, 05:28:55 am ---Whether its a A-4, A-6, or F-14.....It's still a jet that lands on a boat. I understand that it might take a little extra studying and practice to get the feel of the particular jet, but it's still the same experience. A jet landing on a boat. Sure Iris and other companies of done Apaches and other aircraft, just like there are a TON of Tomcats, but as you stated, there are few that have accurately modeled any of them. Again, the whole "backseat concept" sounds cool in the designing phase, but I really don't think it will do so hot in the real world. I think most of you guys have the mentality that "I will be flying the jet, while the "other guy" will be in the back handling the instruments/systems." With everyone having that mentality, there will not be many people that will be regular or skilled Radar Intercept Officers. Also the whole "backseat concept" is based on playing the sim in multiplayer. If Microsoft tries put all the "bells and whistles" on it, such as FLIR, LANTIRN and the tons of moving control surfaces that are on the Tomcat, it's going to be a memory hog and kill frame rates for many players in the multiplayer sessions. As far as making "mods" to use weapons....FSX is not the place for that. A "modern warfare" combat flight simulator would be the right place for "warheads on foreheads". FSX is meant for people that like practicing flying maneuvers, techniques, radio communications, shooting instrument approaches and checking out the virtual world at 10,000 ft, not shooting at other aircraft from 10 miles. It's kinda like putting a Jeep on a racetrack or a Ferrari on an off-road course, both cars are well suited for the environment that they are designed to be in, but not well suited for EVERY environment. FSX is for civilian/corporate flying not combat dogfighting. The moment Microsoft starts adding guns and missiles to FSX, it then becomes a GAME and not a SIMULATOR. That's why a lot of old-fashioned MSFS guys weren't too happy about the Acceleration Pack because they say it made sim feel more like a game vs. a sim. Again, if Microsoft makes another Combat Flight Simulator utilizing modern aircraft, the Tomcat would be a MUST in my book. But not for FSX.
--- End quote ---
Thats just your perception of what FSX is and is not what the developers think of the whole adding weapons concept for FSX. I bet you didn't know that the earlier versions of FS did in fact include an air combat aspect as well as dogfighting and no such things have nothing to do with age ratings etc. Both civ and military aircraft can exist in the same sim but in the case of the Hornet and Tomcat its up to the developers and few people in the community to create missions that make use of the features to get the most out of them online. In fact the people who don't want such features are a minority because it adds to the FS universe and alot of people bought acceleration especially to fly the Hornet. Another thing to think about is weapons could only really be used in missions not free flight thats the main limitation if they were added so only those who wish to use them would go to that server. To consider weapons turning the sim into a game is another myth since to employ weapons requires procedures and alot has to be taken into account to use them. It would only turn FS into a game if the developers took shortcuts and ignored some aspects of realism. Now regarding the RIO you can fly without them IRL or ingame you could have an AI RIO if no one wants to be one no problem there but being able to have someone else fly as one would add alot though. And an AI RIO would be cool if he behaved like the one in Topgun fire at will by chatter and tgt description in BFM or make him puke with enough rough flying like in Janes F-15E or do the checklists etc for startup. Theres alot of possibilitys there.
SUBS17:
Ok if the developers really want to do an F-14 I think its high time a few ideas and issues are raised.
1/ fix the MP carrierops including the automated carrier fleets so that players can use them.
2/ add LSO and ATC plus TACAN for the carrier
3/ how about animated deck crew since FSX supports animated people(can get the hand signals from NATOPs manual)
4/ missions for Tomcat can include Recce, ID/CAP, Topgun(might have to add A4 3d model)
5/ simulated dog fighting for Topgun and maybe ACMI recording
6/ Flight Manual for the F-14
7/ Realistic rampstart procedure for the pit.
8/ 2 seater with both pits modelled
9/ working mirrors ;D
10/ Inflight refuelling with drogue
11/ AI carrier aircraft Hornet/E2C/F-14/EA6B
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version