Teasers?

[dhazelgrove]

Would we do a thing like that - to you?

Dave

[expat]

Oh my! Had almost forgotten about this project. As much as I am attached to the old AS portover, this will be a big improvement.

[skyhawka4m]

Lets hope weapons can be swapped if you don't have TAPACK.

[hschuit]

Lets hope weapons can be swapped if you don't have TAPACK.

I asked the developer about this and he responded: "We will look into it soon. The only drawback is that unlike TacPack stations, non-TacPack users will have the added weight and different CG, but drag & lift will be the same as in a clean aircraft, per FSX limitations."

This sounds very good to me.

[Daveroo]

i want a shiny yellow one.


joking...but i do want this....oh so many planes to come...oh so not much money................

[Mach3DS]

I'm very curious as to why one would not simply purchase TacPack? It's the same cost as an accusim airplane from a2a and allows you to have all the features enabled of every forthcoming project without having to ask the devs to modify them to not use Tacpack? I'm just curious what's the aversion? Not an attack just legitimately curious.... It offers much more than just shooting at things. the AI functions alone are worth the purchase. I can for example call up an entire flight of B-17s and fly with them via the tanker menu using TP. I can set altitude speed direcruit and a host of other settings. It's great for formation flying with FR freeware B17s! Sacrifice one airplanr purchase for TP amd you won't regret it!

[Dumonceau]

I asked the developer about this and he responded: "We will look into it soon. The only drawback is that unlike TacPack stations, non-TacPack users will have the added weight and different CG, but drag & lift will be the same as in a clean aircraft, per FSX limitations."

This sounds very good to me.

Indeed!. No loadout, no buy!

Johan

[Bjoern]

I'm very curious as to why one would not simply purchase TacPack? It's the same cost as an accusim airplane from a2a and allows you to have all the features enabled of every forthcoming project without having to ask the devs to modify them to not use Tacpack? I'm just curious what's the aversion? Not an attack just legitimately curious.... It offers much more than just shooting at things. the AI functions alone are worth the purchase. I can for example call up an entire flight of B-17s and fly with them via the tanker menu using TP. I can set altitude speed direcruit and a host of other settings. It's great for formation flying with FR freeware B17s! Sacrifice one airplanr purchase for TP amd you won't regret it!

If I want to blow stuff up, I use a proper combat sim like Falcon BMS and not a plugin-based solution for a platform that was never intended for weapons in the first place.

[Duckie]

I'm very curious as to why one would not simply purchase TacPack? It's the same cost as an accusim airplane from a2a and allows you to have all the features enabled of every forthcoming project without having to ask the devs to modify them to not use Tacpack? I'm just curious what's the aversion? Not an attack just legitimately curious.... It offers much more than just shooting at things. the AI functions alone are worth the purchase. I can for example call up an entire flight of B-17s and fly with them via the tanker menu using TP. I can set altitude speed direcruit and a host of other settings. It's great for formation flying with FR freeware B17s! Sacrifice one airplanr purchase for TP amd you won't regret it!

Legitimate question, Rick. Here's my answer. This is only my answer and applies only to me, and is not disparaging ANY product or any other simmer. Vive la difference!

I enjoy military aviation very much and rarely fly anything civilian. However, military aircraft with weapons other than missiles loaded on departure rarely return with those munitions. As a civilian, the vast majority of real life observable military aircraft are rarely seen with munitions of any kind, but are regularly seen configured with external fuel tanks and various empty pylons.

I did enjoy combat sims of their times and for about 7 years straight I flew online twice a week with 3 other great guys and sim pilots, some times against the sim and sometimes against each other, and had a blast doing it. Alas, this is not a combat flight sim. It does not offer intelligent enemy aircraft that pose a "real" threat to me or my aircraft. I don't enjoy shooting fish in a barrel. If FSX were to evolve into or develop a true combat option I'd be one of the first in line for that. Until that time...

My preferred military aircraft configuration is fuel tanks or clean, which ever is most appropriate for the given aircraft. So, I don't need to spend $50.00 for an app to let me unload bombs so I can fly, and I won't spend $$ on aircraft that do not give me at least an option to fly with tanks only or clean.

Just my personal taste and answer respectfully given.

[Dumonceau]

If I want to blow stuff up, I use a proper combat sim like Falcon BMS and not a plugin-based solution for a platform that was never intended for weapons in the first place.

Of course there is this possibility of using P3D Pro which is intended for weapons.

I do agree however that the old FSX and the current P3D are not really suitable. If you want to blow up stuff or shoot things out of the sky, then use a proper combat sim like Falcon, Strike Fighters or CoD.

Mickey$oft don't have anything valid to offer in combat sims anymore. Theirs are all dated, if not to say archeology.

again, just MHO.

Johan

[henrystreet]

Lots of features in TacPack have nothing to do with destruction or actual combat. Aerial refueling is the feature most glaringly missing from FSX and P3D that is enabled with TacPack. GLOC sim is another feature.

[Mach3DS]

Duckie, Bjoern, others,

No worries from me! I was just curious. I'm not associated with VRS, I was just curious.

I would have to say that everyone has their opinion and they're entitled to it! I'd have to disagree, I flew a fantastic mission with a fellow tester in the new MV P38 and it was very smooth and very fun. Took off with stores and came back empty! P3D is especially fantastic and enjoys much more performance than FSX. At any rate I completely respect your reasons and will un high jack this thread!

[SiR_RiPPER]

FSX/P3D has indeed a bit of distance to cover still in order to be considered a fully fledged combat simulator.
The basis is now there (TacPack), FSX@War is a good leap in that direction and P3D's AI behaviours allow for combat appropriate behaviours.
What is missing is good teams of mission/scenery/asset makers that will gather up and fully equip a theatre.

I.e. the FSX@War guys are building a Libya theatre, with AI aircraft and vehicles of their own (other than the VRS Hornet and what FSX supplies).
The Vietnam War Project is a great add-on as well, but depends on lots of third party aircraft.

Since no developer wants to undertake such a thing for FSX/P3D, the opportunity is there for the community to supply. The demand is there, it can be done for free or "for fee".
I for one would love to help in that direction.

[delta_lima]

a few I took last night ... scooting around Los Angeles, the San Bernadino mountains, and some CARQUAL work off the coast of San Diego...









Naval Phantom lovers are going to like this model!!

dl

[henrystreet]

great screencaps, DL

[delta_lima]

great screencaps, DL

Thanks HS!

Only recently did I discover Blue Sky Scenery .... http://www.blueskyscenery.com/ completely transforms SoCal (I've only installed a dozen or so tiles - since it really slows down my startup time). It plays nicely with the Calclassics sceneries, so except for the modern autogen, I'm close to having a good-looking "FS1960X" type of environment (when I'm around any of the old air bases/airports).


dl

[dhazelgrove]

One from Henk.

Dave

[falcon409]

Legitimate question, Rick. Here's my answer. This is only my answer and applies only to me, and is not disparaging ANY product or any other simmer. Vive la difference!

I enjoy military aviation very much and rarely fly anything civilian. However, military aircraft with weapons other than missiles loaded on departure rarely return with those munitions. As a civilian, the vast majority of real life observable military aircraft are rarely seen with munitions of any kind, but are regularly seen configured with external fuel tanks and various empty pylons.

I did enjoy combat sims of their times and for about 7 years straight I flew online twice a week with 3 other great guys and sim pilots, some times against the sim and sometimes against each other, and had a blast doing it. Alas, this is not a combat flight sim. It does not offer intelligent enemy aircraft that pose a "real" threat to me or my aircraft. I don't enjoy shooting fish in a barrel. If FSX were to evolve into or develop a true combat option I'd be one of the first in line for that. Until that time...

My preferred military aircraft configuration is fuel tanks or clean, which ever is most appropriate for the given aircraft. So, I don't need to spend $50.00 for an app to let me unload bombs so I can fly, and I won't spend $$ on aircraft that do not give me at least an option to fly with tanks only or clean.

Just my personal taste and answer respectfully given.

I think that about covers it Duckie. I will add that after perusing threads where TacPack was discussed it was obvious that there are those who swear by it and don't understand why people wouldn't purchase it at least for the added benefits it offers and there are those who don't see why something like this is even needed in a Non-Combat Sim. 000rick000's last post bears out the feeling of at least some of the Pro_Tac_Pack users I think. . . .they hear why we don't see any value in it, but they still don't see why we wouldn't buy it, lol.

[falcon409]

FSX/P3D has indeed a bit of distance to cover still in order to be considered a fully fledged combat simulator.
. . . . . .

FSX was never built to be a Combat Simulator and unless the Steam version finds it's way into that venue in a full scale stand alone version, it never will be. Now P3D certainly has the ability to be just that by virtue of the company who is developing it. Seeing a Fully Fledged Combat Simulator take shape for a specific training option would not surprise me. Whether or not that would be made available to anyone outside the Military is a question that would come up along the way I'm sure.

[Bjoern]

Mickey$oft don't have anything valid to offer in combat sims anymore. Theirs are all dated, if not to say archeology.

The CFS3 crowd might eagerly shoot you down for that. It's apparently still a popular platform, thanks to all the add-ons.

(And to be fair, the ever beloved IL-2 isn't much younger than CFS3 and still going very strong.)

Duckie, Bjoern, others,

No worries from me! I was just curious. I'm not associated with VRS, I was just curious.

I would have to say that everyone has their opinion and they're entitled to it! I'd have to disagree, I flew a fantastic mission with a fellow tester in the new MV P38 and it was very smooth and very fun. Took off with stores and came back empty! P3D is especially fantastic and enjoys much more performance than FSX. At any rate I completely respect your reasons and will un high jack this thread!

You asked, you got an answer.

And to be completely honest, I wouldn't say "no" to a training module based on TacPack featuring practice bombs, practice unguided rockets and a an AI target tug or AI drone. Or combat maneuvering AI wingmen for practice dogfights.
A full fledged "war zone" scenario, however, is just inappropriate when the remaining airspace is still buzzing about with all kinds of civilian traffic.

[delta_lima]

For my part, I have not yet seen where the lack of TP materially reduces my enjoyment of FSX. The only small gap perhaps might be insofar as A2A refueling goes, and I believe TP is not the only option for that in any case. Like Duckie and others, I fly either clean or tanks only most of the time in FSX. For flying combat missions, I go to Strike Fighters. While I maintain my position I laid out in the MV Phantom thread regarding the development philosophy that requires TP into the critical path of a model's launch as opposed to a follow-on effort, I just accept that many devs do it, and carry on.

Back to this project, even as a decidedly non-TP beta tester, I have been to get the loadouts I wish from the guidance provided in the loadout manager to edit the payload stations weight values accordingly. Easy, no fuss. As Henk explained, that adding/removing the payloads results in weight and CoG changes, but drag/lift impacts. Would I rather have all variables respond, without having to use TP? Yes, but in my personal view, that's a minor tradeoff I can live with.

So non-TPers, fear not - if you were able to edit models such as Dino's F-14 payload stations, then this model will be just as easy. And for what it's worth (don't know if this will be the case in the final version of the model) - unlike Dino's model, which when loaded in FS, came fully armed and you had to "unload" the weapons in the payload screen - the SWS F-4, when loaded in FS, defaults to a completely "clean" (no tanks/weapons) state. Again, Alex can pipe up and comment on what that may be like on final release, but am hoping it remains that way for the above reasons.

Horses for courses, folks.

dl

EDIT - just saw B's post regarding training. Would fully dig a "training environment" type module, and if I ever get TP, it would be for that very application. Not sure if needed, though, since Flying Stations and a few others have done pretty good A2G coding packages that lend themselves to a good training environment were weapons are concerned. That to me, is the sweet spot insofar as FSX's strengths and limits are.

[Dumonceau]

The CFS3 crowd might eagerly shoot you down for that. It's apparently still a popular platform, thanks to all the add-ons.

(And to be fair, the ever beloved IL-2 isn't much younger than CFS3 and still going very strong.)

LOL! I know that the CFS2/3 crowd would love to lynch me for that remark, but it is true. IL-2, through developments has remained current.

And lets face it, CFS3 (even with the ETO and other mods) is evolving, but not because of Mickey$oft. That is done by the respective communities (who do a stellar job BTW). Even highly modded, CFS3 will never be a Cliffs of Dover.

Again, this is just my humble opinion, not wanting to put down anyone or anything.

Johan

[hae5904]

......another plus for TacPack is, besides the air refueling tankers mentioned above, the aircraft carriers!
More control of the carriers, eg you can let one choose the right wind direction and speed ....... and that with AI Carriers/RFN gauge all together, will surely be a plus for a naval Phantom......

H

[xpelekis]

It's kind of weird to me, people to illustrate the A2A Refueling, GLock or Carrier placement abilities of an addon like the Tacpack, that is primary use is weapons and relative systems simulation.
Don't get me wrong, but I don't think that someone with no interest of using weapons in FSX, will buy such an addon for these "secondary" abilities (even if they are great).

Why should someone buy the Tacpack ? I really don't know.
All I know is why I bought the Tacpack and for sure the reason is not to convert FSX to something that FSX isn't, ie, a Combat Simulator. Comparing FSX with combat sims is not fair.
Truth is that to many people simulate Military flying in FSX in various ways like flying formations, flying over military sceneries (like Solomons, etc), flying in IVAO SODs etc, based on their vivid imagination.
I just prefer to align the aircraft with a target and pull the trigger at the right moment in a simulator that I like, ie, FSX. That is why I bought the Tacpack.

"SiR_RiPPER" 's point of view, is exactly my point of view also. And this :

What is missing is good teams of mission/scenery/asset makers that will gather up and fully equip a theatre.

... would push forward the Mil. Ops in FSX (regarding Military simming and not necessarily Combat simming).

But anyway, since the topic is named "Teasers?", here you go :