FSDreamTeam forum
General Category => Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board => Topic started by: SUBS17 on May 13, 2008, 12:20:07 am
-
I'm wondering which aircraft will be the next you guys model since the acceleration hornet maybe if its carrier based you might consider animated ground crew since FSX can support animated people.
-
They haven't decided. There saying maybe the F-14 Tomcat.
-
Aw, man...that would be great if it was. The "Cat" is one of my all time favourite aircraft!
-
That would rock Tomcats rule.
-
tomcat.....eh.....
-
Jimi's over there crying I WISH IT WAS SOMETHING BLUE ANGELS lol ;D
-
The Tomcat WAS a great aircraft. It's time has come and gone. Let it go...
-
they wont be making another acceleration pack, the next update will probably be fs11, and THATS going to be a while, so i suggest you hunker down for a bit, but i agree with boss razgriz, it wasnt THAT good of a plane GET OVER IT everyone!
-
People is talking about a full plane add-on, not a microsoft expansion pack.
About the plane, everybody has a preference (mine is f-16!), but a quality plane for FS is always a pleasure, no matter which one is.
:)
-
Ah, Aerosoft is making the F-16. I want to see a next-gen fighter such as the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 JSF.
-
Ah, Aerosoft is making the F-16. I want to see a next-gen fighter such as the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 JSF.
Yea ,the vertical take off version of the F-35 would be a "must have"
Randy
-
Gents,
I believe they decided on the F-14; which is my humble opinion is a great choice. However, I'm working to see if I can get the U.S. DoD along with Lockheed to facility documentation for them to consider an F/A-22. The F-35 will definitly not be a possibility for the life time of FSX because of many technological changes to the first deployment versions that are currently still undergoing developmental upgrades and testing.
So, I want to encourage FSDream Team developer members to keep up the good work and make a great Tomcat with all its versions, cockpits and capabilities. I, for sure, will be buying it; when they make and release it.
-
F-14.....eh....
-
jimi,
That's what I though when I heard that the acceleration jet was the F/A-18 A only; Now that I've seen, flown, and pushed all its buttons... I'm singing another tune - Yes!!!!!! ??? ;D
-
Ah, Aerosoft is making the F-16.
Thank you for that information.
I have just visited their web. Looks like a great add-on, with fly by wire included (so they say). But the HUD is not collimated, what a pity, though I understand that it's a not needed feature for almost the whole fsx community.
-
Ah, Aerosoft is making the F-16. I want to see a next-gen fighter such as the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 JSF.
I doubt it would have much on the F-16 in open falcon but the pit and the 3d model look quite nice. They did mention a weapon addon pack in the future which sounds good. I doubt you could model the datalink and other features realistically in FSX. As for F22 and F35 more likely to see those on FS than realistically modeled in a combat sim due to the secrecy over the aircraft and its JHCMS etc.
Speaking of F-16 sim development
-
jimi,
That's what I though when I heard that the acceleration jet was the F/A-18 A only; Now that I've seen, flown, and pushed all its buttons... I'm singing another tune - Yes!!!!!! ??? ;D
I am definately interested in an F-14 now questions will it be 2 seater and will they model the INS and rampstart reallistically?
-
THEYVE ALREADY MADE AN F-14 PPLZ! Iris made it, the mejor thing wrong with it is that it goes like 1000KIAS too fast. if it were realistic, you would never get to fly it because it would be grounded 99% of the time
-
"I am definitely interested in an F-14 now questions will it be 2 seater and will they model the INS and rampstart reallistically?"
....yeah and maybe they will realistically model the Tomcat's stellar reliability and maintainability record as well. If Microsoft were creating a modern Combat Flight Simulator, I would be all for it as it is a great air-to-air interceptor, but in the Flight Simulator X community, this is really no place for that. Microsoft picked the hornet because it gives the costumer the best of basic, non-combat, military aviation. Something powerful (well compared to the other aircraft that are available in Microsoft's lineup), it's very maneuverable (compared to the F-14), it's still being used in today's U.S. Military (well the C,D,E,F and G variants are) and it gives the consumer the opportunity to have fun doing one of the most demanding feats in aviation, landing on a aircraft carrier. You guys have to remember that FSX is mainly for flying and training in the friendly skies, not combat. As much as some of you would like to, we cannot shoot Phoenix missiles, drop laser-guided bombs and fire Vulcan cannons from our jets. With that being said, I feel that Microsoft, along with Captain Sim and FS Dreamteam did an awesome job and made the right decision with the Hornet. Let the Tomcat R.I.P!
-
it gives the consumer the opportunity to have fun doing one of the most demanding feats in aviation, landing on a aircraft carrier. You guys have to remember that FSX is mainly for flying and training in the friendly skies, not combat.
I don't see why, for the same reasons, we couldn't do an F-14, since the F/A-18 it's already done. For the very reason FSX is all about flight training (which is 99% of a flying pilot career anyway), I think many would like to use a different airplane, especially one so famous. Fact that is no longer in service in the US shouldn't really matter, when we did the F4 for Cloud9, nobody complained about that.
The F-22 would have been a great choice as well. But since I don't think we'll ever be able to obtain any meaningful documentation that is needed to model it realistically, I'm not very optimistic about that one.
-
THEYVE ALREADY MADE AN F-14 PPLZ! Iris made it
Well, they made a good portion of the worldwide military arsenal out there, if we had to base our decision of what not to do, based on what Iris (or Alphasim, for that matter) did, we wouldn't had much choices left...
-
Hi, the Tomcat would be fantastic!
However, in my opinion, I'd like most the Starfighter for fsx, just as realistic as the 2004 version (maybe with the -S version).
-
Lol, Jack, you and the Pro Blue Angels think there going to make an F/A-18B or super hornet? Please, they've already made there fair share of hornets! Go talk to Captain Sim. They would be the ones to make it.
-
Virtuali,
My point is that the Naval Carrier aviation side of the FSX world has already been covered with the Hornet. Why not venture into some other realm, like combat helos such as the Apache or Cobra maybe? Or maybe the Marine Corps' AV-8B Harrier? Or maybe even the Texan 2? The Harrier and its flight characteristics are a little different than most jets and would give the customer a different flight experience (much like the carrier landings of the hornet and the Red Bull Air Races with the Extra 300). The Texan 2 would be VERY beneficial to all the Naval, Marine Corps, Airforce, and Coast Guard students,future students,"I wanna fly in the military when i grow up" students, since that is the primary joint military trainer for those branches. It is also used as a multi-national trainer as well. It is a very popular, beneficial and capable aircraft. If you make it like you did the Hornet, military flight students/enthusiast as well as turboprop fans from all over the world would be singing your praises.
Razgriz,
I don't think Jack is opting for the creation of the B variant or any other type of Hornet for that matter. It's been done, no reason to redo what already has been done. I think he, like myself, realize that the Tomcat is overhyped, overdone, played out, and everything that it could offer to the FSX world has already been covered by the Hornet. Why not cross over to a different realm of military avaition and give our virtual pilots a different FLIGHT (not combat) experience instead of the same one, but with a Tomcat and Top Gun music playing in the background.
-
My point is that the Naval Carrier aviation side of the FSX world has already been covered with the Hornet
Not really, the F/A-18 it's just the current fighter in use, but one can't possibly forget an airplane so famous as the Tomcat, even outside aviation circles.
And, I wouldn't say naval aviation is covered, without having proper representations of an A6, A4 and, why not, the SU-33
The Harrier and its flight characteristics are a little different than most jets and would give the customer a different flight experience
Since FSX doesn't support vectored thrust at all, it wouldn't be a different flight experience: it would be a wrong one. Doesn't make much sense spending 9 months creating an accurate instrumentation and system, without being able to have a proper flight model for it.
The Texan 2 would be VERY beneficial to all the Naval, Marine Corps, Airforce, and Coast Guard students,future students,"I wanna fly in the military when i grow up" students
I don't know...I always had the impression that people using a flight sim want to simply fly with the top birds (like F-16, F-15, F-14, F-18), and not really wanting go through all the intermediate training steps, like real cadets have do. That's an advantage of flight simulation: you can cut corners and pretend being a top gun, the moment you load the package.
However, we did a trainer, the MB339 for Cloud9. It was a reasonably good success but, 99% of the users wanted because of the "Frecce Tricolori", certainly not because it was designed as a trainer...
The Apache wouldn't be a bad idea, because is certainly very well known and satisfying. But the issue is, we don't have much experience with helicopters. Yes, we did the EH-101 gauges for Microsoft, but designing a whole aircraft from scratch is quite different, and I have no problem admitting there's nobody in our team who have the slightest idea about making a flight model for an Apache, or any other helo, for that matter.
The F-14 makes the most sense for us, because it reasonably similar to the F/A-18, so we can hopefully reuse some of the experience we made with it.
If you think "flight experience", the F-14 might allow for the most unique flight experience: shared cockpit, since it'a a two seater. That feature alone would make it an entirely different product comparing to the F/A-18.
Now, the usual disclaimer: this is not a product announcement. As I've said at the start of the thread, this project hasn't started yet, and it will not start until next year. Of course, we would really like to do it properly, and for the F-14 this means networked shared cockpit and FSX allows that. But this is just an idea right now, no promises, we'll need to make our tests, research, etc.
-
Since FSX doesn't support vectored thrust at all, it wouldn't be a different flight experience: it would be a wrong one. Doesn't make much sense spending 9 months creating an accurate instrumentation and system, without being able to have a proper flight model for it.
That would also cut off the F-22. A Tomcat would be really nice sharing the cockpit with a guy actually in the back with gauges.
-
My vote is for the Tomcat. ;D
-
Dear Virtuali Staff,
I'm with you; gents, for the F-14 Tomcat.
I would like to see it (F-14) in all its glory and versions - A/A+/B/D; with as many "bells and whistles" you can put into it like the fuel probe, FLIR, LANTIRN, GPS, etc. (especially for the D version, which even had fully incorporated A-G guided bombs and night vision helmet mounted gear).
I know that this is not yet in the making. But I guarantee you that if/when you build it people are going to go crazy; just like they did when the IRIS F-14 first came out for FS9. But, that bird is only to be a FSX native of the original and there is no telling when the B/D will be out or if it will be bug free. That is the main reason I'm reluctant to invest in many 3rd party developers; because of support and side-stepping (use of stock gauges or false cockpits, etc).
Thank you FS Dream Team and keep up the good work!
Eagerly waiting for KJFK ;D
-
Ok, ok....I see your points about your teams inexperience and Microsoft's flight modeling. That sucks because i believe the Apache or Harrier would be an awesome investment. As far as the A-4 and A-6 go, it's the same thing. It's a jet.....it lands on a boat....it's a challenge. It's kinda like riding a bicycle. It can be a 10-speed, 15-speed, or a 21-speed....if i know how to ride one of them, I can probably ride the rest of them. Looks like the only thing that is changing is the wrapping paper that it comes in. From what it sounds like, I will be getting the same high performance aircraft that can land on a carrier. The whole selling point about having someone sitting in the back seat.....how long do you think that's going to last? From what I've noticed on the multiplayer side, the majority of your customers are young men between the ages of 12-17. Most of these guys dont even have the patience to fly in a formation not alone side in the backseat while the other guy is having all the fun yanking and banking. The "backseat" idea will work for a couple of flights, but most of your audience will quickly opt for doing the flying themselves vs. sitting in the back. Which brings us back to the same thing.....a jet...a boat....same challenge. But I do understand that your company, like Microsoft is a business and it must sell products. The Tomcat is a very popular aircraft, and I'm sure it will be a great hit much like the current acceleration pack is. I must admit that I have used Microsoft Flight Sim in the past, but what has gotten me addicted to this one is not the scenery or realism, it's that fact that it finally brought something different to the table instead of the same Cessnas, Learjets and 747s. Microsoft brought it with the Red Bull Air Races and you guys brought it with your Acceleration Pack. I was just hoping that you guys could keep "changing it up" for a little while instead of possibly becoming a fancier "Abacus Fleet" expansion pack.
-
there is gonna be another expansion pack, called adrenaline
-
there is gonna be another expansion pack, called adrenaline
I haven't heard of this...Where are you getting this info from?
-
there is gonna be another expansion pack, called adrenaline
I haven't heard of this...Where are you getting this info from?
http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=14569
and
http://fsxmission.com/live/
-
Adrenaline was the original name for Acceleration. It was later changed into Acceleration.
-
Mr. Umberto Colapicchioni (Virtuali),
Thanks for clearing that up for me! ;)
-
THEYVE ALREADY MADE AN F-14 PPLZ! Iris made it, the mejor thing wrong with it is that it goes like 1000KIAS too fast. if it were realistic, you would never get to fly it because it would be grounded 99% of the time
No one has made what I would class a decent representation of an F-14 for FSX not even Abacus.
-
"I am definitely interested in an F-14 now questions will it be 2 seater and will they model the INS and rampstart reallistically?"
....yeah and maybe they will realistically model the Tomcat's stellar reliability and maintainability record as well. If Microsoft were creating a modern Combat Flight Simulator, I would be all for it as it is a great air-to-air interceptor, but in the Flight Simulator X community, this is really no place for that. Microsoft picked the hornet because it gives the costumer the best of basic, non-combat, military aviation. Something powerful (well compared to the other aircraft that are available in Microsoft's lineup), it's very maneuverable (compared to the F-14), it's still being used in today's U.S. Military (well the C,D,E,F and G variants are) and it gives the consumer the opportunity to have fun doing one of the most demanding feats in aviation, landing on a aircraft carrier. You guys have to remember that FSX is mainly for flying and training in the friendly skies, not combat. As much as some of you would like to, we cannot shoot Phoenix missiles, drop laser-guided bombs and fire Vulcan cannons from our jets. With that being said, I feel that Microsoft, along with Captain Sim and FS Dreamteam did an awesome job and made the right decision with the Hornet. Let the Tomcat R.I.P!
Actually the F-14 when first built had a pretty good maintenance record of course any aircraft that gets to the age 20 or more has problems with maintenance especially with the sort of performance the Tomcat has(well beyond that of any version of the bug). Maintenance is also a poor reason not to model an F-14 unless you're doing a full jet combat flight sim with dynamic campaign complete with airframe maintenance then is when you worry about such things. Regarding weapons I believe that it is possible to model weapons modes and delivery and destroy objects on the ground. Regarding radar you can already lock aircraft with the Hornets radar in FSX so a mod could be made which adds such features in FSX. Or you could even use MSESP and model it. Its pointless to mention FSX as just a sim for people to just cruise around in and so not model the F-14 when the F/A-18 was made by adding the CAT you would then have 2 aircraft worth landing on the carrier with. BTW Tomcats are still in active service elsewhere so it ain't RIP yet.
-
Virtuali,
My point is that the Naval Carrier aviation side of the FSX world has already been covered with the Hornet. Why not venture into some other realm, like combat helos such as the Apache or Cobra maybe? Or maybe the Marine Corps' AV-8B Harrier? Or maybe even the Texan 2? The Harrier and its flight characteristics are a little different than most jets and would give the customer a different flight experience (much like the carrier landings of the hornet and the Red Bull Air Races with the Extra 300). The Texan 2 would be VERY beneficial to all the Naval, Marine Corps, Airforce, and Coast Guard students,future students,"I wanna fly in the military when i grow up" students, since that is the primary joint military trainer for those branches. It is also used as a multi-national trainer as well. It is a very popular, beneficial and capable aircraft. If you make it like you did the Hornet, military flight students/enthusiast as well as turboprop fans from all over the world would be singing your praises.
Razgriz,
I don't think Jack is opting for the creation of the B variant or any other type of Hornet for that matter. It's been done, no reason to redo what already has been done. I think he, like myself, realize that the Tomcat is overhyped, overdone, played out, and everything that it could offer to the FSX world has already been covered by the Hornet. Why not cross over to a different realm of military avaition and give our virtual pilots a different FLIGHT (not combat) experience instead of the same one, but with a Tomcat and Top Gun music playing in the background.
The Texan 2 has already been done(i think by Iris) and a fully detailed avionics sim of the texan 2 is also in development for another sim.
http://www.fighterops.com/
Apache is also on the horizon made by these guys
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?end_pos=3&scr=newslist&lang=en
But they are doing this first
http://www.simhq.com/_downloads/air/black_shark/DCS_video2.zip
As for the F-14 something not yet done properly for any combat jet in FSX a working fully modeled 2 seater. Look at the F/A-18B it doesn't have a back seat modeled whereas the F-14 has that potential if they go the whole nine yards and put a decent pit for the front and backseat it would add alot to FSX. Also dogfighting is possible even if it is just BFM gunzo in simulate and use smoke as an indicator for a kill.
-
Ok, ok....I see your points about your teams inexperience and Microsoft's flight modeling. That sucks because i believe the Apache or Harrier would be an awesome investment. As far as the A-4 and A-6 go, it's the same thing. It's a jet.....it lands on a boat....it's a challenge. It's kinda like riding a bicycle. It can be a 10-speed, 15-speed, or a 21-speed....if i know how to ride one of them, I can probably ride the rest of them. Looks like the only thing that is changing is the wrapping paper that it comes in. From what it sounds like, I will be getting the same high performance aircraft that can land on a carrier. The whole selling point about having someone sitting in the back seat.....how long do you think that's going to last? From what I've noticed on the multiplayer side, the majority of your customers are young men between the ages of 12-17. Most of these guys dont even have the patience to fly in a formation not alone side in the backseat while the other guy is having all the fun yanking and banking. The "backseat" idea will work for a couple of flights, but most of your audience will quickly opt for doing the flying themselves vs. sitting in the back. Which brings us back to the same thing.....a jet...a boat....same challenge. But I do understand that your company, like Microsoft is a business and it must sell products. The Tomcat is a very popular aircraft, and I'm sure it will be a great hit much like the current acceleration pack is. I must admit that I have used Microsoft Flight Sim in the past, but what has gotten me addicted to this one is not the scenery or realism, it's that fact that it finally brought something different to the table instead of the same Cessnas, Learjets and 747s. Microsoft brought it with the Red Bull Air Races and you guys brought it with your Acceleration Pack. I was just hoping that you guys could keep "changing it up" for a little while instead of possibly becoming a fancier "Abacus Fleet" expansion pack.
The A6 and A4 might appear in FS as being similar but both aircraft are quite different and if fully modeled would require alot of studying to learn to fly. The challenge is to make the aircraft detailed enough to make people to want to learn more about the aircraft. As for MP well that is the major problem with FSX MP code has too much lag for decent formations like LO.
-
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.
-
But they are doing this first
http://www.simhq.com/_downloads/air/black_shark/DCS_video2.zip
I saw it, too, and the review. Impressive! Everything that the real ship has it's there! I already knew it but, now that I'm seeing it in simhq I'm beginning to be scared. I won't have time to master it the day it's available to the public. Only in my dreams, when I was a teenager eager to learn everything about aviation, a sim for general public so complete could be possible. You young people around here are lucky for living these times of high tech at home in your early years of life.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
FSX is for civilian/corporate flying not combat dogfighting.
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.
The moment Microsoft starts adding guns and missiles to FSX, it then becomes a GAME and not a SIMULATOR
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.
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
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...
Again, if Microsoft makes another Combat Flight Simulator utilizing modern aircraft, the Tomcat would be a MUST in my book. But not for FSX.
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...
-
Gents,
I would love to see the Tomcat in the complexity of the Helo video (http://www.simhq.com/_downloads/air/black_shark/DCS_video2.zip) 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.
-
...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.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
...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.
What the problem is with MP is that you are getting inexperienced pilots flying hornets in free flight where as there are no dedicated MP missions for the hornet and also a lack of decent trainning missions to teach pilots the right way of doing stuff. There also needs to be rewards etc for good flying which unfortunately has not happened with acceleration. Its no big deal if guys setup servers not allowing the hornet since they are using FS for their own purpose and its the server owners right to fly the way he wants. Compare FSX acceleration to Allied Forces online in FSX the player has only 2 options for the hornet 1/ do the canyon race, 2/ fly aimlessly around from airport to airport.
Now what happens in F4AF, players meet in the lobby and a mission is selected from a campaign where a flight and package are selected. Pilots select their position in the flight(flight lead, 2,3,4) they then check the breifing and recce the tgt and take off times are checked plus load out is setup. Flight comits to a ramp start and cold start their aircraft on the ramp.(15-30mins) Flight taxis to runway after permission from tower and hold short. Flight takes off and fly in formation to the tgt or they might refuel enroute etc. So 2 options 1 fly aimlessly from airport to airport or do a canyon race and thats it. You could do formations in FSX but in my experience so far its MP code needs tweaking to make it more dedicated for that sort of flying. If they made carrierops MP then it would drastically change the MP experience for FSX for the hornet.
-
But they are doing this first
http://www.simhq.com/_downloads/air/black_shark/DCS_video2.zip
I saw it, too, and the review. Impressive! Everything that the real ship has it's there! I already knew it but, now that I'm seeing it in simhq I'm beginning to be scared.
Thats nothing wait until you see what else is on the horizon imagine jet combat aircraft with that sort of detail on a Global map like FSX in dx10 as well. ;) Although at this stage Black Shark would be considered very close to the same level of complexity IMO. Just for a hint check the SIMHQ calender
http://www.simhq.com/_calendar/calendar.html
And its 2 seater as well 8)
-
Subs,
I like your reasoning and I agree with it. Except all the things you mentioned would be better for a combat sim. Just like Falcon 4. Notice how detailed F4 is, but it doesn't contain anything for Civilian aviation. You mentioned that the earlier versions of FS used to have air combat...I'm pretty sure there was a good reason they got rid of it. It's probably the same reason Microsoft decided to make a SEPARATE sim that DOES feature aircraft with guns and bombs. It's called Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator.
-
Actually you could easily put civilian aviation in F4 and what you fail to see regarding AFs missions in MP is that it is actually exactly what is missing in FSX accelerations world for MP. You see there is only so many times you can fly from point A to point B before it becomes boring alot of the relevant trainning features and the main purpose of accelerations Hornet is to be able to land on a Carrier which you cannot do in MP. Other aspects are also things related to flying real Hornets that don't actually involve using weapons such as flight trainning missions and formations for MP. The other thing about your posts is that they contradict what you just stated you on one hand wish for FSX to have a combat element and on the other hand oppose a military sim that has not modeled civ aviation.
You mentioned that the earlier versions of FS used to have air combat...I'm pretty sure there was a good reason they got rid of it.
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.
So which is it dude do you want a combat aspect or not?
-
Subs,
The first point you brought up is the same point I am trying to get across. Just like you stated about flying from point A to point B and how it eventually becomes boring, I feel the same way about making the next aircraft a Tomcat for FSX Acceleration. The point is, you are doing the same thing. Whether it's in a Hornet or Tomcat. You are still either flying from point A to point B, landing on the carrier, or flying formation with people in multiplayer. The only thing that changes is the type of aircraft that you are doing it in. Which I feel will get boring pretty quickly after the "Wow, I'm flying a F-14 Tomcat" factor dies out.
As far as the last part of your post. I think you misunderstood me. I DEFINITELY WANT COMBAT!!! But the more though I put into this topic the more I feel that instead of fiddling around with adding military aircraft into the world of FSX, Microsoft/Dreamteam/etc. needs to go ahead and just make a new, full scale Combat simulator. It would have all the realism of FSX, but built and designed from the ground up for the combat side. Imagine a sim that would have the flight & avionic modeling and realism of Falcon 4.0, the multiplayer smoothness of LOMAC and the worldwide accessibility and weather dynamics of FSX! An with FS Dreamteam by our side, we can be assured that we have a nice plethora of quality aircraft. Not just different blocks of F-16s. If you want to do high altitude bombing with a B-52, or it you want to simply do donuts in the sky with a KC-135 while refueling a flight of F-15s, you can. If you want to practice carrier approaches with a RIO in the back or if you want to practice spin recovery procedures in a TexanII, you can. If you want to grab a couple of P-51s and stafe some trains, you can. Instead of having tutorials for x-wind landings, there will be tutorials an how to do the carrier break (aka the overhead). Most of the missions will be military related, from tactical flight formations, to Air Combat Maneuvering, to Aerial refueling. If you want to drop bombs or fire cannons, you can....with your online buddies at your side! Leave FSX for the civilian/corporate/commercial guys and build a new, expandable combat sim for the guys that wanna do the military thing.
-
Guys,
Please let's stop this fruitless debate. They already told us "what" and "why"... I don't believe that continuing to debate this will change anything. Many of the things we all want are just not availiable right now. Perhaps MS will make that a reality at some point and I'm sure that FSDream Team staff will do accordingly. But, for now, let's just agree to table this discussion.
What do you all say?
-
A very new "Modern" fighter. The Tomcat has had its day.
-
A very new "Modern" fighter. The Tomcat has had its day.
Apparently, Not! They're still considering it. The AV-8 isn't a modern aircraft either; Personally, I would like them to make both but, they won't do it... :'( :'( :'(
-
I don't want a harrier :) No vectored thrust in FSX so its pointless.
-
Guys,
Please let's stop this fruitless debate. They already told us "what" and "why"... I don't believe that continuing to debate this will change anything. Many of the things we all want are just not availiable right now. Perhaps MS will make that a reality at some point and I'm sure that FSDream Team staff will do accordingly. But, for now, let's just agree to table this discussion.
What do you all say?
I agree FSX is not the place for air combat but this sim here is:
FighterOps interview (http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_360a.html)
20mm: Another topic that the community is interested in that of third party add-ons and mods. I gather that there will be an SDK toolkit to access these add-ons, and that FO will approve and distribute them. Is that about right, or is it somewhat more complicated?
Rick: When appropriate, we will release a set of tools to modify existing content and create new content for the program. The tools will verify the integrity of the created content before exporting to the game format. More strict integrity checks can optionally be done by XSI to make the add-on officially approved. All required measures will be taken to make sure that multi-player sessions with user-created mods are problem free.
There is also the first video ever released in the above sim.
Fo video (http://www.simhq.com/_downloads/air/FighterOps/FighterOps_1.zip)
They also sent 2 of the developers up in a T38 to experience 1st hand what its like to fly jet fighters etc. Hopefully one day some one will add the F-14 to this sim. 8)
-
A very new "Modern" fighter. The Tomcat has had its day.
Its still in service in Iran but its unclear how many they still have flying.
-
Subs,
The first point you brought up is the same point I am trying to get across. Just like you stated about flying from point A to point B and how it eventually becomes boring, I feel the same way about making the next aircraft a Tomcat for FSX Acceleration. The point is, you are doing the same thing. Whether it's in a Hornet or Tomcat. You are still either flying from point A to point B, landing on the carrier, or flying formation with people in multiplayer. The only thing that changes is the type of aircraft that you are doing it in. Which I feel will get boring pretty quickly after the "Wow, I'm flying a F-14 Tomcat" factor dies out.
As far as the last part of your post. I think you misunderstood me. I DEFINITELY WANT COMBAT!!! But the more though I put into this topic the more I feel that instead of fiddling around with adding military aircraft into the world of FSX, Microsoft/Dreamteam/etc. needs to go ahead and just make a new, full scale Combat simulator. It would have all the realism of FSX, but built and designed from the ground up for the combat side. Imagine a sim that would have the flight & avionic modeling and realism of Falcon 4.0, the multiplayer smoothness of LOMAC and the worldwide accessibility and weather dynamics of FSX! An with FS Dreamteam by our side, we can be assured that we have a nice plethora of quality aircraft. Not just different blocks of F-16s. If you want to do high altitude bombing with a B-52, or it you want to simply do donuts in the sky with a KC-135 while refueling a flight of F-15s, you can. If you want to practice carrier approaches with a RIO in the back or if you want to practice spin recovery procedures in a TexanII, you can. If you want to grab a couple of P-51s and stafe some trains, you can. Instead of having tutorials for x-wind landings, there will be tutorials an how to do the carrier break (aka the overhead). Most of the missions will be military related, from tactical flight formations, to Air Combat Maneuvering, to Aerial refueling. If you want to drop bombs or fire cannons, you can....with your online buddies at your side! Leave FSX for the civilian/corporate/commercial guys and build a new, expandable combat sim for the guys that wanna do the military thing.
Theres already a couple of sims in development at the moment which will deliver in this area and they are the DCS series by Eagle Dynamics which at the moment are making the KA50 but will later do A-10, AH64, Hind, F-15, F-16 and Mig29. There is also FighterOps which is still a while off but will feature Texan 2 and T38C fully modeled 2 seaters UPT and IFF trainning modules. And they are the basis for combat addon F-15C/D/E, F-16C, A-10A and later other addons may include a Naval addon. As for any FS combat you are quite limited as its not designed for it as you know the only way to do that would be to use MSESP I think and it would take quite a long time to develop considering how complex a jet combat flight sim is. As for your MP issues I have to suggest that you should join a virtual squadron. I myself fly with VFA35 online and we use F4AF, OF, lockon and occassionally Janes F/A-18 and we are also part of a large online virtual Navy. At the moment Arma is probably the only sim that allows pilots and marines to work together(eg ground lasing tgts for LGBs) in MP but hopefully FO will go that path later so our Navy/Marines and Pilots can work together online. Hopefully companys like FSdreamteam would make quality addons for FO later on with aircraft such as the Tomcat and Hornet etc. 80s cold war Naval combat mod would rock. 8)
-
I have to admit ,this is all very interesting .I too would be very VERY excited of the prospect of a full
combat version of FSX.Unfortunatly the thought of updating my computer once again (for no other
reason than to run the latest sim) is ,or would be a difficult sell.I think and would prefer add ons along
the lines of the Acceleration pack ,with "enhancements" of course.The programming expertise of Aces
should find within there capability to produce a quality millitary expansion pack and that way those who
prefer civillian only, need not buy
My 2 cents
Randy
-
I agree FSX is not the place for air combat but this sim here is:
FighterOps interview (http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_360a.html)
Some people say that fighter ops is genuine "vaporware". At least they have a video now, but still they have to prove they are really producing something.
-
I agree FSX is not the place for air combat but this sim here is:
FighterOps interview (http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_360a.html)
Some people say that fighter ops is genuine "vaporware". At least they have a video now, but still they have to prove they are really producing something.
crim3,
Where might I find this video that you are refering to?
Thank you.
-
Heres the video:
Fo video (http://www.simhq.com/_downloads/air/FighterOps/FighterOps_1.zip)
IMO its probably better to make an addon than it is to make a whole new sim from the ground up.
-
I have to admit ,this is all very interesting .I too would be very VERY excited of the prospect of a full
combat version of FSX.Unfortunatly the thought of updating my computer once again (for no other
reason than to run the latest sim) is ,or would be a difficult sell.I think and would prefer add ons along
the lines of the Acceleration pack ,with "enhancements" of course.The programming expertise of Aces
should find within there capability to produce a quality millitary expansion pack and that way those who
prefer civillian only, need not buy
My 2 cents
Randy
I doubt that aces could ever produce anything at this level of detail and even if they tried it would take several years to get even half way since FS ain't got the features required to produce such a sim. MSESP could but going down that road would still not produce a dynamic campaign or the other effects required from a combat sim. As for system specs got to wait out on that one.
-
I agree FSX is not the place for air combat but this sim here is:
FighterOps interview (http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_360a.html)
Some people say that fighter ops is genuine "vaporware". At least they have a video now, but still they have to prove they are really producing something.
Yeah its taken a while for them to get to the level where they finally released a video the good thing is hopefully they might get the 1st release out in the next 1.5 to 2 years going from what I've seen in the video. Considering its being made part time hopefully things will happen quicker when they get the 1st release out they can start making some money from the project and we'll see some real decent action in MP with it.
-
I doubt that aces could ever produce anything at this level of detail and even if they tried it would take several years to get even half way since FS ain't got the features required to produce such a sim. MSESP could but going down that road would still not produce a dynamic campaign or the other effects required from a combat sim. As for system specs got to wait out on that one.
[/quote]
The one thing that amazes me is what good programers CAN do with something after the fact (FSX , from when it started compared to after sp2)
But whatever or however they come out with there next creation I am sure we all will be " Blown away " :o (pun intended)
I am just itchin to see what is comming next 8)
Randy
-
In fact, to make FSX a combat simulator, you would need extra dll's that FSX.exe would read properly to get any kind of lock and fire at all. If you can get a missile to shoot in the game, you can make it a full blown amazing combat simulator. You just need to know your programming.
-
In fact, to make FSX a combat simulator, you would need extra dll's that FSX.exe would read properly to get any kind of lock and fire at all. If you can get a missile to shoot in the game, you can make it a full blown amazing combat simulator. You just need to know your programming.
You need alot more than that combat sims are immensely complex compared to a flight sim.
Radar Air/Air mode
Radar Air/Ground mode
RWR
damage model
weapons flight model
weapons effect model
ground object damage model
ECM
ESM
ECCM
ground object AI
aircraft AI
missile seeker limits
missile FM
HAVQUICK radio freq
TACAN
LSO AI
CARRIER ATC
AI Logistics support
Aircraft maintenance
Dynamic campaign
IFF
AWACs
AI radar
ATC
Inflight refuelling tanker
Tanker AI
refuelling script for AI jets
MP compatibility and stability
Tanker TACAN
FLIR
LGBs
Buddy Lasing
And thats just a few features that would be required they also require military consultants and constant testing to ensure that it works properly and doesn't break any law or reveal any secret information not allowed to the public. Its not just about dropping bombs or shooting missiles its a whole enviroment in a sim and even the missiles are immensely complex such as the Aim120 which use the launch aircrafts radar(or wingmans radar) until the 120s seeker goes active which can home on jam etc. Dropping bombs can also be quite complex since there are 5 modes of delivery from CCIP, CCRP, LADD, DTOS, manual etc. You've got burst altitude for cluster bombs and arming delay plus fuse selection for nose or tail and other profiles that can also be used. I think for an F-14 addon you can put something in there that touchs on the combat aspect perhaps a Topgun mission pack and use the radar for the F-14 to use a simulated dogfight where the losers aircraft might have smoke released if its hit. The only problem here is the MP side of it as will FSX allow smoke to be released after a simulated guns hit. Missiles would be a problem you can do simulated dogfights with IR missiles but actually launching missiles and having aircraft explode might be tricky for FSX as it ain't really designed for that.
-
I said make it a full blown simulator. If all I got was locking on, firing missiles, or dropping bombs, I wouldn't even consider it worth it. I already knew all that...
-
Some good missions for and FSX expansion could be:
ramp start
take off / land
Nav mission fly to the Carrier from the airbase
Carrier take off / landings
Inflight refuelling
CAP with a couple of neutral aircraft.
SARCAP after allied aircraft crashes in hostile waters
Topgun missions
1 vs 1
2 vs 1
2 vs 2
2 vs 4
4 vs 4
2 vs 8
(Gunzo/heaters)
Topgun trophy competition
MP missions
NAV mission to Carrier
Traps and CAT launches + inflight refuelling
Topgun Trophy
Dogfight F-14 vs Hornet
Just a few ideas ;) (Could even include hornet missions for Topgun as well)
-
Sounds awesome.
-
YEAH it rocks, but who? who can or will do this?...
-
I'm in for the F-14, I'd like version 'B' and 'D' :) It would be very cool escpecially with such a nice cockpit like in the F/A-18A!
Elias
-
I'd like to see a F-16. Just like they did with the Hornet where you have the different skins. This time they can do all 6 thunderbirds. I know they say they have tons of F-16's out there for download, but I have never tested a F-16 where everything on the pan;es worked and had realistic flight character abilities. With that I think a F-16 with the Thunderbirds would be a nice addition.
-
I'd like to see a F-16. Just like they did with the Hornet where you have the different skins. This time they can do all 6 thunderbirds. I know they say they have tons of F-16's out there for download, but I have never tested a F-16 where everything on the pan;es worked and had realistic flight character abilities. With that I think a F-16 with the Thunderbirds would be a nice addition.
I second that, no quality F-16's.
-
I second that, no quality F-16's.
No F-16 coming from us. Aerosoft is doing one, which should be quite good and, since we have a good business relationship with them for several things, it wouldn't make much sense to overstep each other with similar products.
-
Raz you should check out that F-16 that Virtuali mentioned
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=16110&st=40&start=40
you will be amazed,looks cool
Randy
-
YEAH it rocks, but who? who can or will do this?...
Its just a suggestion of what could be possible with FSX.
-
There are a lot of sessions that say no F18's, jets, military planes, etc., but there are also several really good, professional-level ATC sessions and others that will welcome the hornet as long as you what you're doing in the environment, or if learning, are polite and do your best.
I've learned a lot from the pilots who are flying 737's, etc. and the ATC's. A good ATC makes for a fun session if you enjoy learning real flight procedures, navigation, IFR flying, ILS landing, etc.