NEW F16 for fsx.....a must see

[x_jasper]

Kat wrote: Besides, I don't see anyone in the X-Plane forums complaining about X-Plane's weapon capabilities.

Hi Kat
That's because officially X-Plane is not a combat sim either. My understanding is there WAS an intended combat addon for that sim, but it was stopped by the owner(s). I guess this was either to hide the fact that X-Plane flight characteristics are just plain 'pulp' or possibly for some religious reason.

I don't personally see how FSX would fully support combat in the true sense, because as stated by Aerosoft your enemy must have the same aircraft. To some extent this is giving us a clue that the sim will not support 'global' damage effects, i.e. you fly a mig15 and your enemy has a sabre, clearly two different aircraft so what happens then ?

If these things really are psuedo-combat, I don't see how half a system justifies a price tag. IMO.

Jasper

[Joe_D]

......I don't personally see how FSX would fully support combat in the true sense, because as stated by Aerosoft your enemy must have the same aircraft. To some extent this is giving us a clue that the sim will not support 'global' damage effects, i.e. you fly a mig15 and your enemy has a sabre, clearly two different aircraft so what happens then ?.........

No, I don't envision FSX having "global damage effects" either.......just the aircraft to aircraft "dogfight" effects modeling.
As far as needing the same aircraft, I interpete this to mean that the F-16 in question is now the only one to support this so far. So, you will need an identical aircraft, for now at least.

I don't see any reason why somone else can't develope other aircraft with exactly the same effects, etc..
I'm shure the FSX game engine does't dictate that only a F-16 can have this capability.

[Daube]

You may be right Felix.

However, there were categoric statements to the effect that FSX was not a combat sim, if if turns out to be some kind of 'psuedo-combat' sim then your theory would hold up.

I guess we shall have to wait and see.

Although the more I look at the demo, the more I get put off the idea of buying.

No offence, but it is a bit too 'american' for my taste. I don't like the big band intro music either, I find it too invasive.

In addition, it has a crap flight engine just like it's predecessor. In-fact I reckon it's one and the same.

First? addon for FSX happens to be an f16, and they want money for it.

What's wrong with a MkI Spit or an Ef2000 typhoon?

Well, for sure those planes will come soon, it's just that the aerosoft team wanted to do a F-16, because a lot of people (and not only americans) love this plane.

[Daube]

Kat wrote: Besides, I don't see anyone in the X-Plane forums complaining about X-Plane's weapon capabilities.

Hi Kat
That's because officially X-Plane is not a combat sim either. My understanding is there WAS an intended combat addon for that sim, but it was stopped by the owner(s). I guess this was either to hide the fact that X-Plane flight characteristics are just plain 'pulp' or possibly for some religious reason.

I don't personally see how FSX would fully support combat in the true sense, because as stated by Aerosoft your enemy must have the same aircraft. To some extent this is giving us a clue that the sim will not support 'global' damage effects, i.e. you fly a mig15 and your enemy has a sabre, clearly two different aircraft so what happens then ?

If these things really are psuedo-combat, I don't see how half a system justifies a price tag. IMO.

Jasper

x_jasper, if I understood well, you have some knowledge in aircraft data modelling in the FS series.
So you certainly know what a simple gauge allows...

It is very obvious that this F-16 has a gauge-based system that allows to shoot or be shot, and every plane with that same gauge will act the same.

It's exactely like this carrier operation gauge we had for FS9, or this hovering gauge. Any plane can receive the gauge, so any plane will be able to do carrier ops, or hovering, or (in aerosoft case) shoot and be shot.

[PisTon]

It isn't designed for combat, but the engine probably supports it

[x_jasper]

I'd put my bet on this being localised damage effects rather than a complete system as in previous CFS series.

Although in my opinion it's rather irrelevant since the flight engine itself isn't really good enough for combat. For example, FS9 & FSX are good for transport & civillian aircraft modelling but actually giving them aerobatic dynamics does bring to light some major shortcomings.

Little has been changed in this respect since they ripped essential components out of the FS9 core.

I actually find these two sims very good for the likes of biplanes and heavy transport aircraft, but for anything demanding the modelling simply isn't upto the job.

As for an f16....not to my taste, of average performance and of no historical relevance.

Regards
Jasper

[hypostomus2000]

Ignoring flight dynamics for a moment, my long term dream for FS is that apart from being a flight sim it'll become a world sim, where you can have accurate water currents and winds for sailing for example. This is going to take a while but I'm sure computer capabilities will increase to where this is possible. Now then, the civilian/military debate thing. Wouldn't it be cool if you could have both merged into one sim, and the sim contacts a server like it does for weather and it tells it whether it's in a warzone or not? So if you fly your 747 over Somalia or wherever you get shot down and likewise if you start bombing London you get a severe telling off (unless you're Werner von Braun, "I aim for the moon but sometimes I miss"... It's just a thought and I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who won't care for the idea but there you go.
cheers
Chris

[krylite]

Yes, the first Flight Simulator I-III had "World War I ace".  A special grid supposed to be the German-French border split by a river. Of course primitive by today's standards, but 25 years ago, FS had a more diverse market. FS was one of the best game programs out ther for the 8-bits. (still is one of the best games!) Lots of folks played FS primarily for the WWI ace game. Later Jet1.0 -> Falcon 1.0 etc.

I wouldn't mind seeing flight combat coming back to FSX. If you use CrashBak you see most of the planes had damage and flaming explosion effects support anyways(pre 9/11).
Damage factors are in FS, and PMDG and other addons make use of them. (ex. broken/bent gear, damaged flaps etc).

Maybe one day 10 years from now we'll get all in one. You hope out your plane in a war zone along with your Delta force buddies and start ground wars(see Operation Flashpoint and thier real simple AH-64, Hinds, Warthog and Cessna 172 etc. support). Maybe fight your way to the next airport , steal aboard a 737, and blast off with dirty system setups etc. to escape with freed hostages.
3-D landscape would be the whole world. Or just plain 3D guy you walk around after you leave the plane , go to your charter company for work , meet up with some CEO client to take on the next charter flight. Beat deadlien, please customer , get $$$ etc. FSPassengers^2 etc.

X-jasper, have you tried IL2: forgotten battles and/or IL2: pacific? if so, how's the flight engine (aerobatics and dogfighting centric) in your opinion? Engine, supposedly designed by ex-Soviet military aerospace engineer(s).

[x_jasper]

Good idea!

I don't know why they just don't produce one fully open global sim and have it on a lobby where there are no restrictions.

In effect, as you gentlemen say: we could have a situation where you could attack just about eveything.
In a way, similar to the old CFS2 'hop shooters' but on a global scale.

Perhaps someone will do such a sim one day. Cyber-armageddon lol

Jasper

[hypostomus2000]

Well, I suspect you'd have to have some limitations as to what you can do in multiplayer sessions, although I'd love to see the face of an as real as it gets airliner pilot on final approach when someone bombs the runway. I think it would only work if you are only allowed to use weapons in defined areas, war zones or target practice areas, otherwise you'll have lots of lurking player-killers.  Of course this would lead to further segregation between civilians and the military where warplanes can only land at military airbases, and you have no fly zones for civilian aircraft, I'm not sure how this could be enforced, electroshock joysticks perhaps?
And assuming we do get a perfect world simulation somewhere down the line it'll make a superb peaceful way to resolve conflicts and relieve frustration without resorting to violence. (Yes, I am an old hippy.)
In the meantime I'll make do with better roads and terrain, and hopefully somewhat better landclass.
cheers
Chris

[Daube]

The example of Operation Flashpoint is simply a PERFECT example.
Operation Flashpoint is actually the "sim" (yeah, ok, it's not THAT realistic, but a sim anyway) that gives one of the best view of the future of simulators.
A sim correctly built can normally simulate any moving object. I'm not talking about weapon systems or anything, just about the wolrd, objects an physics.
Now the problem with Flashpoint is the reduced view range, making a plane almost impossible to fly without a map.

But FS, or X-Plane, are already on the good way. I mean, look how much cars or boats we already have as addons ? That means the environments are getting slowly but surely detailled enough to enjoy those kind of experiences.

I already said that in another post, in some detailled landscapes like the sceneries from Hogler Sandmanns (North Cascades and Bella Coola are my favorite, my prefered airport is Concrete Mum), you can take a car and go around the main roads. The car reations surely suck, but the view out of the windows, the landscape you get, is far ahead of any crappy need for speed (haem, excepted Need For Speed the First, the Best of al times

[RAF_OldBuzzard]

X-jasper, have you tried IL2: forgotten battles and/or IL2: pacific? if so, how's the flight engine (aerobatics and dogfighting centric) in your opinion? Engine, supposedly designed by ex-Soviet military aerospace engineer(s).

IL2 FB is a GAME, not a simulation.  The flight models are GARBAGE.

If CFS3 hadn't been an unfinished piece of junk, instead of what it was CAPABLE of being, Il2 would have died with a whimper a long time ago.  As bad as CFS3 was, the Avhistory 1% planes are light years ahead of anything in IL2.

I admit that I do 'fly' it, but only because it's what the RAF662 went to.

[Daube]

[quote]

IL2 FB is a GAME, not a simulation.

[an-225]

[quote]
Of course there were some mistakes, but that doens't make them simple games, like Ace Combat or Crismon skies...

[Daube]

[quote]

What's wrong with Ace Combat? It