Thoughts about MSFS 11

[heywooood]

ok - lets have nukes and napalm in every flight simulator - what the hell do I care.

For the people who like military aviation - and I am one - lets call it laziness and not pacifism.

I'm too lazy to switch to another sim on my pc for combat - I want it all in one too

but FSX has no real combat flight elements - no damage models - no damaged airplane flight model per se - no shredded aluminium, no 20mm canon holes- no weapons effect model or balistics, just muzzle flash and sound effects and thats just not enough for a combat sim ....and even if the next FSXI or FS11 has those things they will come at a price elsewhere in the sim.

why not keep it seperate - FSX and FS11 can offer mil. aircraft and a training environnment that combat sims lack - training squads can be formed online and FS11 can enhance those aspects of the sim...but for the most part I personally would like to keep FS civiian or more accurately non combat and use the sims that are designed for air warfare seperate - where those aspects can be fully and properly implemented

[IanP]

This "debate" wasn't started over wanting a combat sim. Other sim's can be used for combat flying, example IL-2. All that was asked for was the ability to do what real military pilots do on a daily bases in FSX/11. Which is: File flight plans, talk to ATC, go to the bomb range etc. Wouldn't it be easy to control the potential combat by restricting those activites to certain areas? In other words, guns and bombs could only be used on the range. Single play is simple; if you don't want to drop bombs or shoot guns then don't.

PM Sent.

We agree here, for the most part. Unfortunately, as I said before, it isn't that simple. Putting that last bit - the bomb dropping - in as a separately rated add-on preserves the basic sim as being suitable for absolutely everyone.

Acceleration is given a 12+ rating, I'm told, purely because someone can die in one of the missions. It is therefore not considered suitable for children. I know, personally, parents who have specfically gone out and bought FS (2004, in the instances I know of directly) purely because it has no combat in it. Some of those kids will go on to become part of the FS community.

I know this site, specifically, has a far higher than average number of military simulation fans - the logo up the top left says it all. I also frequent a lot of other sites where people aren't vaguely interested in warbirds, military jets or airbases. But please remember that civilian FS add-ons still massively outsell military ones. There are more civilian freeware uploads every day than military. We, here, may have a bias towards one side of the sim, but its a bias that others don't share. We have to remember that.

Ian P.

[stiz]

I use FSX to just fly around and relax, i dont care for ATC or things like that, if we got real atc we'd be sent allover the place, told off, we'd have to listen to people who talk unhumanly fast, also if we got real traffic, we'd have to wait for ages at aiports awaiting clearence .. i'll pass thanks

what i would like to see:

Cloud shadows
a new lighting system so things look less "cartoony"
better landclass and coastlines, paticulary in areas outside of the US!
more of a mix in the defult planes, so you'd have like 2/4 modern planes with 3/4 older planes (pre jet age)

More variation in tiles

FSX has over 1000 different texture tiles as it is! :isadizzy: allthough more variations in trees + buildings would be nice

As for combat, i'd rather they'd do a different sim for it, a bit like they did with CFS2, so use the FS game engine, lower the autogen density so theres less for the PC to do, leave the moddability there for the 3rd party people, and whatever you do, dont make another cfs3!

Also mud, you CAN drop bombs, but its up to the 3rd partys do to it

[MudMarine]

Works for me Stiz! All I ever asked for was the ability to do what military pilots do. How it gets there doesn't matter that much to me. Dropping bombs is a SMALL aspect to that, at lest for me.

[SkippyBing]

Also mud, you CAN drop bombs, but its up to the 3rd partys do to it

You can, but they don't take into account the aircraft's vertical movement at the time of drop so it starts at 0 and accelerates at 1g. This means if you try dive bombing you overtake the bomb and collide with it, and you can't do toss bombing where you pull in to a loop and let go half way through so it follows a ballistic arc to the target area.

[spotlope]

I'd like to state for the record (as if I hadn't already) that I have no problem with combat flight simulators. Hell, I flew for years in an IL2 squadron, and loved it. I usually end up back in FS, though, just because I need someplace peaceful to fly without having to worry about someone sneaking up on me and shooting off my tail. I get enough pressure and stress trying to make a living; it's nice to have someplace quieter I can go when I want to unwind.

That's all I'm sayin' folks. Honest. If MS makes a combat flight sim, I'll probably buy it. I'd love to see what they do with the FSX platform with guns added. But when I want things a little calmer, I turn to a civilan FS. I don't think that makes me a "peace-nick crude", whatever that is.

[Pultacatt]

But please remember that civilian FS add-ons still massively outsell military ones. There are more civilian freeware uploads every day than military. We, here, may have a bias towards one side of the sim, but its a bias that others don't share. We have to remember that.

It would be interesting to see the figures between Civilian FS addons as opposed to Military considering the amount of Military payware developers out there. I am sure that civil addons do in fact sell more than military but I am also certain that it is not by such a high margin as one would expect or be lead to believe.

The freeware civilian uploads (not including sceneries of course) are flooded with the same aircraft type (how many versions of the same production model Airbus?) or they are repaints of the said limited aircraft types repeated and they certainly do outweigh the amount of novel Military releases that's for sure - Mostly the uploads these days are repaints be they civil or military so it's kinda unfair to make that comparison.

Mud, I was at one point intending to state a similar fact to yours but for my shame I lacked your conviction. I do so now: A civilian flight sim once stood accused by the ignoramae of aiding & abetting a terrorist group in successfully bringing the world to its knees in shock, grief and disbelief, they didn't use military grade equipment, quite the opposite as we all know - For a while many of us feared the demise of our hobby because of it and to this day I still feel uneasy when flying near that certain part of the Eastern seaboard.

[MudMarine]

I'd like to state for the record (as if I hadn't already) that I have no problem with combat flight simulators. Hell, I flew for years in an IL2 squadron, and loved it. I usually end up back in FS, though, just because I need someplace peaceful to fly without having to worry about someone sneaking up on me and shooting off my tail. I get enough pressure and stress trying to make a living; it's nice to have someplace quieter I can go when I want to unwind.

That's all I'm sayin' folks. Honest. If MS makes a combat flight sim, I'll probably buy it. I'd love to see what they do with the FSX platform with guns added. But when I want things a little calmer, I turn to a civilan FS. I don't think that makes me a "peace-nick crude", whatever that is.

Completely understand and agree! As I posted, there are ways to ensure that tail shooting off doesnt' happen while in multi-player. Because it could only happen in that context..

[cheezyflier]

I use FSX to just fly around and relax, i dont care for ATC or things like that, if we got real atc we'd be sent allover the place, told off, we'd have to listen to people who talk unhumanly fast, also if we got real traffic, we'd have to wait for ages at aiports awaiting clearence .. i'll pass thanks

in FS9 i can run a/i wide open, but i have it turned down because flying anywhere near new york, toronto, cleaveland, los angleles or any other heavy traffic area it's near impossible to respond to atc without skwooing the mic, and often times they want you to change frequencies so often it's maddening. one ting that would be really cool though is if they fixed that thing that makes atc (in some areas) drop your altitude way too late and you end up having to go around.

[IanP]

It would be interesting to see the figures between Civilian FS addons as opposed to Military considering the amount of Military payware developers out there. I am sure that civil addons do in fact sell more than military but I am also certain that it is not by such a high margin as one would expect or be lead to believe.

The freeware civilian uploads (not including sceneries of course) are flooded with the same aircraft type (how many versions of the same production model Airbus?) or they are repaints of the said limited aircraft types repeated and they certainly do outweigh the amount of novel Military releases that's for sure - Mostly the uploads these days are repaints be they civil or military so it's kinda unfair to make that comparison.

Mud, I was at one point intending to state a similar fact to yours but for my shame I lacked your conviction. I do so now: A civilian flight sim once stood accused by the ignoramae of aiding & abetting a terrorist group in successfully bringing the world to its knees in shock, grief and disbelief, they didn't use military grade equipment, quite the opposite as we all know - For a while many of us feared the demise of our hobby because of it and to this day I still feel uneasy when flying near that certain part of the Eastern seaboard.

The scenery uploads are part of the point, though - there are a tiny fraction of the number of military AFDs available compared to civilian, ditto AI, ditto repaints, ditto freeware models. The reason I started playing with AFDs again was because I couldn't find a working AFD file for any of the military airfields in this country for FSX. Then I got sidetracked, but hey, these things happen. :d

Anyway.

Aerosoft's top sales lists:
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="129"> Box / CD (Oct. 2008) :</td> <td rowspan="4" bgcolor="#999999" width="1">
</td> <td width="129"> Download :</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 1. London Heathrow </td> <td width="129"> 1. AES Credit Pack</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 2. PMDG 747-400 X </td> <td> 2. DHC-2 Beaver</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 3. VFR Netherlands</td> <td width="129"> 3. Manhattan Scenery</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 4. My Traffic X </td> <td rowspan="7" bgcolor="#999999">
</td> <td width="129"> 4. Seahawk & Boxer</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink"> <td width="129"> 5. Carenado Mooney</td> <td width="129"> 5. Piper Cheyenne</td> </tr> <tr class="textlink" valign="top"> <td> 6. German Airports 2 X </td> <td> 6. Frankfurt</td></tr></tbody></table>
SimMarket's top sales lists:
Bestsellers

1. PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC3
2. FSPASSENGERS 2004
3. PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC4
4. ERNIE ALSTON - FSBUILD 2
5. ANTICYCLONE - ACTIVE CAMERA 2004
6. B. RENK - MyTRAFFIC X V5.2
7. AEROSOFT ONLINE - AES CREDITS
8. HIFI SIM - ACTIVESKY 6.5
9. PETE DOWSON - WIDEFS6
10. FLIGHTSIM COMMANDER V8

The same pattern repeats itself at every shop I know of, other than those that specialise in military add-ons. The hundreds of A320s, B737s and DHC-6s out there are present because the market is there for them. Strangely, most of the developers I know prefer developing military hardware, because it's more interesting to model and has more "character", but if they want to bring in money, they do a famous airliner... which then helps them subsidise the next product they actually *want* to do.

Cheers,

Ian P.

[Major_Spittle]

I will be buying Storm of War: Battle of Britain when it is released. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmlk9...eature=related

For me combat is a must for FS11. I play IL2 right now and love a lot of things about the flight modeling, clouds, and destruction. From the looks of Storm of War it will be a generation ahead of FSX in flight modeling and realism.

[Major_Spittle]

The scenery uploads are part of the point, though - there are a tiny fraction of the number of military AFDs available compared to civilian, ditto AI, ditto repaints, ditto freeware models. The reason I started playing with AFDs again was because I couldn't find a working AFD file for any of the military airfields in this country for FSX. Then I got sidetracked, but hey, these things happen. :d

Anyway.

Aerosoft's top sales lists:
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=129> Box / CD (Oct. 2008) :</TD><TD width=1 bgColor=#999999 rowSpan=4>

</TD><TD width=129> Download :</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>1. London Heathrow </TD><TD width=129>1. AES Credit Pack</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>2. PMDG 747-400 X </TD><TD>2. DHC-2 Beaver</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>3. VFR Netherlands</TD><TD width=129>3. Manhattan Scenery</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>4. My Traffic X </TD><TD bgColor=#999999 rowSpan=7>

</TD><TD width=129>4. Seahawk & Boxer</TD></TR><TR class=textlink><TD width=129>5. Carenado Mooney</TD><TD width=129>5. Piper Cheyenne</TD></TR><TR class=textlink vAlign=top><TD>6. German Airports 2 X </TD><TD>6. Frankfurt</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
SimMarket's top sales lists:
Bestsellers

1. PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC3
2. FSPASSENGERS 2004
3. PETE DOWSON - FSUIPC4
4. ERNIE ALSTON - FSBUILD 2
5. ANTICYCLONE - ACTIVE CAMERA 2004
6. B. RENK - MyTRAFFIC X V5.2
7. AEROSOFT ONLINE - AES CREDITS
8. HIFI SIM - ACTIVESKY 6.5
9. PETE DOWSON - WIDEFS6
10. FLIGHTSIM COMMANDER V8

The same pattern repeats itself at every shop I know of, other than those that specialise in military add-ons. The hundreds of A320s, B737s and DHC-6s out there are present because the market is there for them. Strangely, most of the developers I know prefer developing military hardware, because it's more interesting to model and has more "character", but if they want to bring in money, they do a famous airliner... which then helps them subsidise the next product they actually *want* to do.

Cheers,

Ian P.

I would guess this is because of no combat in FSX, so it doesn't really add much to the game like environmental add-ons do. More realistic Passenger Jets do tend to be more interesting with FSX's limitations because they challenge your ability to fly with realism. Military aircraft are nice to look at and that is about it because the are so easy to fly and land.

[Tweek]

I suppose that begs the question - are those high civilian sales because there are more civil aircraft enthusiasts, or because military aircraft are better catered for in other sims?

Now, by no means am I saying 'FS should have combat because of this' (despite being in favour of it, in addon form), but it's hard to compare the civilian and military market in FS, seeing as a vast majority of civilian simmers are going to use FS. What other options do they have? X-Plane is all I can think of, and it's not exactly a strong contender, given the community that FS has built up.

However, look at the options military simmers have - Lock On being the stand out example, which, in my opinion, is actually a better simulator. If I had more than a choice of seven aircraft, I'd have little reason to go back to FS, when it comes to flying fast military jets. I get the ability to fire weapons (just like real pilots), and it's probably more realistic, too.

So, you never know, if we had a combat addon, which the Aerosoft F-16 took full advantage of, weapons systems and all, that could well be up in the top 2/3 in sales.

edit: Seems Major_Spittle beat me to it!

[IanP]

I agree entirely - if FS became the only open-world combat sim, there would be a lot more military add-ons for it. I was only defending the statement I gave above that right now, civilian sales and downloads dwarf military ones. I also seriously like the look of Storm of War, but remember that we're back to limited era, limited area, with that. It can look a lot better than FS as a result.

In case I haven't made myself thoroughly clear already, my position is that I want the best of both worlds... either FS *and* a CFS based on the FS engine, or FS *and* an add-on pack that brings combat into the sim if the user wants it.

Oh, and can I use this opportunity to agree with the earlier comment not to repeat the farce that was CFS3, please? I didn't mind the sim itself that much, but the stupid "commander" parts just drove me up the wall!

Ian P.

[MudMarine]

I guess it might be about choice? If there were another combat sim that came as close to the level of realism the FSX world has, then it would take care of that need. But there isn't. Ultimately it is MSFS choice to design the sim they want it for the marketplace. And our choice as simmers to express what we'd like to see in our FS world.

I believe that there are many more GA and commercial tube simmers than military. But one shouldn't be overlooked to favor another? Comes back to money again and the ability to make add-on's and sell them!:d Maybe someday we'll have that perfect combination.........

[MudMarine]

Pultacatt: I still don't fly near that area......

[srgalahad]

I guess it might be about choice? If there were another combat sim that came as close to the level of realism the FSX world has, then it would take care of that need. But there isn't. Ultimately it is MSFS choice to design the sim they want it for the marketplace. And our choice as simmers to express what we'd like to see in our FS world.

I believe that there are many more GA and commercial tube simmers than military. But one shouldn't be overlooked to favor another? Comes back to money again and the ability to make add-on's and sell them!:d Maybe someday we'll have that perfect combination.........

Amen!

There we go... back to the MSFSxx... IF MS/ACES were to enable "realistic loads" and simulation then we'd be able to have ADD-ONS that realistically simulated passenger loading (even with cattle prods at some airlines), ramp rats tossing your suitcase off the plane and missing the cart/conveyor, UPS guys racing to see who could unload a 747 the fastest, and F-18's that could toss-bomb.

As is, the concept has been to focus on FLIGHT Simulation where we enjoy the pleasures, test and frustrations of operating an aircraft, not it's loads, cargo or ordinance ... and I'm quite happy to stay there. IF the other bits are enabled at source, the after-market may allow you to buy ways to load and unload whatever you choose to carry.

We, the people... have already shown there is interest in parachutists, waterbombers, .50cal., OR a pure, clean Flight sim that runs on something smaller than a Cray. I think the message expressed so many ways here is fairly clear ... enable us (and give us the tools) to choose how we build upon the basic sim to suit our preferences.

Rob

[Lionheart]

If I had rockets and guns in FS, I would use them. Not all the time as I am not into the entire scene of shooting things. But there are times when I need to vent and its one way of doing it. That or get out my COD discs and go hunting, lol..

But why cant FS have combat? I dont see an issue here. At least guns, tracers, bombs, rockets, etc. Like I said though, its easy enough to make a sister game that uses the same platform and have weapons in that one. But like with FSX Deluxe having added features, one could have a 'FS11 Defense' series or something along those lines. (Perhaps it could even be like Accelleration where it adds the guns/rockets/etc into the existing platform and perhaps creates a base 'splinter' platform based off the original 'FS11' folder/package and creates the illusion of a totally new sim (new sim bootup windows for the combat version, etc), and still keep the original as the original, so you would have 2 versions of start icons, and less room is used on the HD, (same terrain tiles are re-used, etc).

I hate to see things limited. There are so many options, and the more options, the more possibilities, the more people are happy, etc, etc. Why limit things..

:d


Bill

[Bjoern]

Make two.. Both have the same platform. YOu can put planes from each into the other sims. Totally interchangeable. (Similar to the idea of Golden Wings being FS9 but renamed and scenery and planes changed out).

Exactemundo.

FSX has over 1000 different texture tiles as it is! :isadizzy:

Over 1000 aren't enough to accurately depict terrain though. At least not outside of North America.

Smaller, but more tiles combined with better landclass resolution and a detached road network (no more paint on the bitmaps) could be the next level of accurate terrain rendering.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Interesting thread. For a while we had the battle of the avatars and we've had separate but equal - where's that ring a bell from? Can't wait to see what else comes up.

As far as combat in MSFS I think keep them separate. One version allowing military combat the other not. Using the same engine is fine but I can see too much potential for conflict. Simple fact is people simply will not play nice in the FS sandbox. One example that comes to mind are the guys flying transcontinental heavies for hours in multiplayer shouldn't have to risk some idiot in an F16 having the opportunity to act on thinking it'll be fun to shoot down this 767 and ruin his day.

-Ed-

[Tweek]

One example that comes to mind are the guys flying transcontinental heavies for hours in multiplayer shouldn't have to risk some idiot in an F16 having the opportunity to act on thinking it'll be fun to shoot down this 767 and ruin his day.

Perhaps the addon could install right into the main sim, Acceleration style, but allow the individual user to toggle weapons/damage on and off, whenever they please. And if you didn't have the addon pack, then you simply wouldn't be able to see weapons or get shot down, anyway.

[Major_Spittle]

Hey All,

Interesting thread. For a while we had the battle of the avatars and we've had separate but equal - where's that ring a bell from? Can't wait to see what else comes up.

As far as combat in MSFS I think keep them separate. One version allowing military combat the other not. Using the same engine is fine but I can see too much potential for conflict. Simple fact is people simply will not play nice in the FS sandbox. One example that comes to mind are the guys flying transcontinental heavies for hours in multiplayer shouldn't have to risk some idiot in an F16 having the opportunity to act on thinking it'll be fun to shoot down this 767 and ruin his day.

-Ed-

I agree that if there is combat that MP should have a way to exclude combat on rooms/servers. I think this can easily be done by having an option when setting up the room/server that disallows damage modeling and aircraft fire. The best way as usual would be to have a password on the room and kick players as need which is basically what people do now for the undesired element that appears in open rooms.

I think many people would really enjoy a MP mission that perhaps involves "Red vs Blue" carrier groups or such and the ability to rearm/repair/refuel on your carrier so you could have your mini war in the pacific. I would love to have a WWII battle like that in which there are objectives. Something in which team work and strategy would be rewarded. :ernae:

[GT182]

As far as combat in MSFS I think keep them separate. One version allowing military combat the other not. Using the same engine is fine but I can see too much potential for conflict. Simple fact is people simply will not play nice in the FS sandbox.

-Ed-

I agree on keeping GA and Combat separate in any MSFS sim. But at least give us the choice to fly either one or both. If one or the sims are needed to keep them separate, that's fine with me. I'd more than like buy both anyways and that would be a plus for the developer/publisher.... more money in their pockets. But at least many of us would be happier. Especially those of us that were disillusioned with the CFS series that they pooped out.

And to your " people will not play nice" statement Ed. There are those out there that never have and never will play nice in any combat or noncombat sim. That's just the way of the beast. It's up to those that play fair and the developers to weed them out of online play.

[riptide]

If it is realism you're after, then IMHO MSFS can't be beat. It has very realistic simulated weather, terrain, navaids, cockpit instrumentation, geographical features and I could go on and on. Aircraft flight dynamics (both military and commercial) can be made quite realistic also.

Those are the reasons FSX is the game of choice for the FS online military squadron I'm in now.

True, we have lived with very limited "combat" effects. Some add-ons help (flak effects, ground fires/explosions., scenery objects etc.).

The FSX simconnect program has let us have launchable SAMs (aimable and tracking) and AI aircraft (KC-135 tankers/B-66/RC-121 etc.) and landable carriers in multiplayer mode. But this is only because we have a brilliant programmer in our group.

What would be nice would be a user friendly interface eliminating the need to use coding to set more simconnect activities.

So, thank you Microsoft for the great game and for opening it up a little for military stuff. We are a niche and aren't the majority but we are out here. We have our cup in hand for a few more capabilities (you know what we would like!).

[heywooood]

there is one form of combat I'd really love to see in FSX -

Fire Fighting...if raging forest fire effects could be rendered and water tanking simulated with accurate FAC ATC and realistic battalion co-ordination on the ground that would make for some real fine mission packs I would think...complete with awards etc it might be really gratifying -

mixed airial assests like helo's and Trackers and Broncos etc...maybe as a FAC you could call in a MARS drop or the big DC-10 tanker

take the challenge to maintain your position in the the pattern - take direction properly and hit the water drops perfectly and then go retank and return

Imagine the sky going blood red as the fire crests the ridge and begins to threaten homes on the eastern slope - time is running out and the sun is going down...

hmmm....