Is the AS F-16 the future of FSX aircraft?

[jmig]

Since reinstalling FSX, I have flown the Aerosoft F-16 fairly extensively. My emotions toward this airplane are like having your bright son come home and tell you he has just gotten a speeding ticket. You love him but you are disappointed that he failed your expectations.

Don’t get me wrong. The Aerosoft F-16 is an amazing piece of work. For $33 USD you get several fit-outs and dozens of skins. You get one of the best looking and most accurate cockpits around and the detail on the exterior is just as good. The HUD is simply; hands down the best there is today. The model flies like a dream. It is rock solid and goes where you point the flight path marker. So why am I disappointed?

Because they came so close to the perfect plane but didn’t quite finish. A few system details that could have been programmed weren’t. Please don’t get me wrong. I am not dumping on Aerosoft and their F-16. I recommend anyone thinking of buying it do so. I don’t think you will feel you wasted your money. I don’t! I love it! While I have my nits on things I feel they could have done, what they have done is amazing.

No, I am using the Aerosoft F-16 to lead into where I think FSX aircraft models are going. They are becoming truer and truer to faithfully reproducing the real airplanes, complete with working systems.

A2A’s Acrusim is an excellent example of this direction. The upcoming VRS’s F-18E looks to be an even bigger step in the same direction. Let’s face it. As add on aircraft become more and more expensive, we the consumers will expect more and more. First it was detailed VCs and then bump mapped exteriors. The FSX aircraft are rapidly approaching the point where it is hard to tell the difference between a FSX photo and a real photo.

So, now in order to up the ante developers are designing working systems. Borrowing from trend setters in the airliner market, the model’s complex aircraft systems are being programmed. The Aerosoft HUD is a perfect example.

Besides the normal HUD symbology you expect, you get intercept tracking information, complete with target designator box, being fed from the radar. You get working ILS and landing guidance displays.

Heck, in the AS F-16 you can even pull up behind one of your tubeliner friends, open the refueling doors, move into position, and refuel off of him. It looks like the VRS F-18’s radar will be even more complex and feature rich along with providing firing ordinance. Gone are the days when we were excited over radios that could be tuned from the VC.

I believe the Aerosoft F-16 is a harbinger to the future of flight simming. 2009 should be a great year as developers discover new and better ways to excite us.

[Panther_99FS]

I'm quite sure it's a work of art :ernae: - but I just don't have a strong interest in modern military jets.

I'd love to see Aerosoft make a 1950's era jet....:kilroy:

[Panther_99FS]

I'm quite sure it's a work of art :ernae: - but I just don't have a strong interest in modern military jets.



After re-thinking what I said earlier, I prolly should've said that I have "F-16 burnout from FS2002/FS2004" :redf:

[falcon409]

I'm quite sure it's a work of art-but I just don't have a strong interest in modern military jets. I'd love to see Aerosoft make a 1950's era jet....
I'm kinda with you Panther. I was anticipating this early on, then as time went on and the aircraft began to take on a life of it's own I realized that it was simply going to be a very expensive toy with systems I'm not interested in and my system might not even be up to running. I have the Lago F-16 and if I want to fly the Falcon (never got into calling it the Viper, sorry), then I strap into that and go flying. . .it's all I need really. I still see a hole in the Century Aircraft that has yet to be filled (The F-100 Super Saber). Yes there are a couple out and in both cases the cockpit is sorely lacking, so an in-depth production version of the Super Saber would be widely accepted and applauded (my opinion only).

As for the Aerosoft F-16. . .I suspect that jmig is correct in saying that what the folks at Aerosoft have produced is the future of Payware addons and we all better get used to higher prices and longer waiting periods from the time a developer says "coming soon" and the actual release date.

[Panther_99FS]

if I want to fly the Falcon (never got into calling it the Viper, sorry),

You & me both...:applause::d

[falcon409]

You & me both...:applause::d
lol, I know that seems to be the "in" thing to call it, but even Major Chamness, who I flew with in 2002 never referred to it as the Viper. I'll stick with Falcon thanks, lol.

Man Panther, I really hate retirement, lol.

[tigisfat]

I'm glad someone else said it. It feels wrong calling an old aircraft by a new name. I can't remember the reason they wanted everyone to start calling it the viper. Didn't it have to do with the lockheed merger or something? I think that the people who latched on to calling it the 'viper' were mainly some of the younger pilots who got into that-fighter pilots can be tools sometimes when it comes to trying to be cool.

[Panther_99FS]

Tigisfat,
"Viper" became popular after Battlestar Galactica....

[Panther_99FS]

Now what I want to know is when the A-10 became "Warthog"...? :isadizzy:

[djscoo]

Now what I want to know is when the A-10 became "Warthog"...? :isadizzy:
That inquiry peaked my interest as well, here's what I found on Wikipedia...
:ernae:

The A-10 Thunderbolt II received its popular nickname "Warthog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warthog)" from the pilots and crews of the USAF attack squadrons who flew and maintained it. The A-10 is the last of Republic's jet attack aircraft to serve with the USAF. The Republic F-84 Thunderjet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-84_Thunderjet) was nicknamed the "Hog", F-84F Thunderstreak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-84F_Thunderstreak) nicknamed "Superhog", and the Republic F-105 Thunderchief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-105_Thunderchief) tagged "Ultra Hog".<sup id="cite_ref-Jenkins_p4_2-1" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10#cite_note-Jenkins_p4-2)</sup> A less common nickname is the "Tankbuster".<sup id="cite_ref-38" class="reference">[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10#cite_note-38)</sup>

[srgalahad]

Now what I want to know is when the A-10 became "Warthog"...? :isadizzy:

Probably within seconds of someone first seeing it :costumes:
although I don't feel that way. It's no more ugly than a D-9 Cat. It just doesn't have the appeal of a DH Comet 4 or a Spitfire. There is a concept that says "form follows function" and the A-10 fits that perfectly. It's role is neither sleek nor sexy but very blunt and brutal so it looks like it does...

Rob

[Peritas]

I have bought the AS "Viper" (is more "form follows function" for me, as srgalahad wrote), and it is very interesting. But for my sistem is too heavy: the problem is not the aircraft, but the scenery, that is not loaded in details. For this reason I found myself to fly the Twotters more often that this heavy (in FPS) aircraft. So, I hope that the future aircraft will be more friendly to our computers, because "beauty, complex but unflyable" aircraft is not interesting after all.

Luca

[jimjones]

Well the complexity of the new sim's is beyond my understanding if the Acceleration f18 is an example. Need detailed instructions. Have not purchased complex fighters.

[jmig]

Well the complexity of the new sim's is beyond my understanding if the Acceleration f18 is an example. Need detailed instructions. Have not purchased complex fighters.

Jim, I agree with you completely on the manuals. One of my nits on the AS F-16 is the manual. As developers build more complex aircraft, they will need to provide more detail manuals on just how to operate the various systems.

However, the flight simmer will also have to make an effort to learn more about the operation of the various aircraft systems. Military fighter and bombers are more than aircraft. They are weapons systems. many of the subsystems on these aircraft are unique to the class of aircraft.

If a flight simmer wants to go beyond the arcade style video games he or she will have to make the effort to learn the systems and how they relate to real flying.

[Bone]

I'm glad someone else said it. It feels wrong calling an old aircraft by a new name. I can't remember the reason they wanted everyone to start calling it the viper. Didn't it have to do with the lockheed merger or something? I think that the people who latched on to calling it the 'viper' were mainly some of the younger pilots who got into that-fighter pilots can be tools sometimes when it comes to trying to be cool.

"New" name? I remember the F-16 being called the Viper as far back as 1986, so I'm sure it had to have been nicknamed the Viper well before that.

[jimjones]

However, the flight simmer will also have to make an effort to learn more about the operation of the various aircraft systems. Military fighter and bombers are more than aircraft. They are weapons systems. many of the subsystems on these aircraft are unique to the class of aircraft.


Agreed to learning more of the operation.

For pilots that have flown these complex a/c, I'm certain it is reflective to them to activate weapons systems. It certainly takes a lot away to be able to activate weapons systems and not be able to see the effects as in a Combat sim.

[Peritas]

Agreed to learning more of the operation.

For pilots that have flown these complex a/c, I'm certain it is reflective to them to activate weapons systems. It certainly takes a lot away to be able to activate weapons systems and not be able to see the effects as in a Combat sim.

Yes, this is another big problem!!! Why I have to study a lot how engage a aircraft, when is not possible to fire it?
:icon31:

Luca

[CodyValkyrie]

I believe Viper was the original envisioned name for the aircraft, however the USAF took a different name. Regardless, after working with F-16 pilots at USAF... I never heard Viper said. It was, and always will be Falcon to me.

Thankfully for those of you wishing for more systems simulations, the team has an invested and talented team to producing patches and service updates to create new systems, etc and get this aircraft even more closer to the real thing.

[bearcat241]

If you're into modern jets with advance systems in flightsimming, this thread reads like a strong case for branching out to vintage combat sims like Falcon 4, LOMAC, Jane's USAF and the venerable Jane's F/A-18E Superhornet (my old favorite). Any of these sims can be purchased for half -- or much less than half -- of the cost of most of these complex payware fighter jets for the FS series. And the "cherry on top" is that the advanced systems can be used for more than just the "wow factor". As flightsimming goes, i'm all for having the most advanced realism possible in practical, useable aircraft systems. But a system must have an end purpose beyond just making the user say "wow, that's cool!". Why do ppl pay for that effect anyway?

If you buy this addon software, you should be able to activate different radar modes to track a target BVR, fire an AIM-120 or something like it and actually hit something. And if you prefer the knife fight, get in close, switch to IR tracking and smoke your quarry with a Sidewinder. That's the "end purpose" that comes to mind when i hear announcements for this kind of advanced stuff... why pay for complex weapons systems that do any less than this?

And since the MS won't go any further than civil simming in a modern framework, this whole advance weapons system "as payware" thing is just tits on a bull. :mixedsmi:

[falcon409]

"New" name? I remember the F-16 being called the Viper as far back as 1986, so I'm sure it had to have been nicknamed the Viper well before that.
I can only speak from my own experiences, having worked on the Falcon for 16 years, within the ranks of Crew Chiefs, Specialists and Pilots, I never heard it referred to as the Viper on a daily basis.
Not so unlike another airplane I cut my teeth on in the mid to late 60's. . .the Super Saber. I worked on the F-100 for 2 years while I was active Duty and never once heard it called a "Hun", yet when Kazunori Ito came out with his Super Saber and later when the Donationware Super Saber was released, as I was doing research for liveries to repaint, I found site after site referring to it as the Hun. Don't have any idea where it came from but I know we never called it that in the years I worked on it. We called it the "Lead Sled" or the "Super Saber".

[CodyValkyrie]

Bearcat, the appeal of such simulations is not just limited to weapons systems. The same reason why some of us like to fly the big radials, etc. Just because it doesn't fire guns doesn't mean it isn't a great simulation!

Often times those advanced standalone simulations miss a lot that FSX offers. For example, navaids, round the world airports, modability, excellent terrain, better navigation systems, etc etc etc, and last but not least, comfortability. I don't have to learn a whole new simulator, but rather the systems itself.

Having worked with the teams that both produced the Aerosoft F-16 and VRS Superbug, both offer things that cannot be done even in standalone simulations. What if I want to do a canyon run in a photo gen area? What if I want to take a stroll around egypt and just soak in the scenery?

You might call it a bull with tits, but sometimes other simulations are nothing more than tits attached to a bull.

[jmig]

If you're into modern jets with advance systems in flightsimming, this thread reads like a strong case for branching out to vintage combat sims like Falcon 4, LOMAC, Jane's USAF and the venerable Jane's F/A-18E Superhornet (my old favorite). Any of these sims can be purchased for half -- or much less than half -- of the cost of most of these complex payware fighter jets for the FS series. And the "cherry on top" is that the advanced systems can be used for more than just the "wow factor". As flightsimming goes, i'm all for having the most advanced realism possible in practical, useable aircraft systems. But a system must have an end purpose beyond just making the user say "wow, that's cool!". Why do ppl pay for that effect anyway?

If you buy this addon software, you should be able to activate different radar modes to track a target BVR, fire an AIM-120 or something like it and actually hit something. And if you prefer the knife fight, get in close, switch to IR tracking and smoke your quarry with a Sidewinder. That's the "end purpose" that comes to mind when i hear announcements for this kind of advanced stuff... why pay for complex weapons systems that do any less than this?

And since the MS won't go any further than civil simming in a modern framework, this whole advance weapons system "as payware" thing is just tits on a bull. :mixedsmi:

Other than six months of dropping bomb on trees and monkeys in SEA, I never once, in almost ten years, every fired a shot at someone. Before Iraq, no one shot at other airplanes. We pretended to do so.

I don't think many people are willing to put in the time and effort to really learn modern weapons systems. Most people will be happy with locking up an AI airliner and pulling up into close trail or fingertip formation.

What I think will happen will be what Acursim has started. Consequences for neglecting your aircraft systems. Run the engine too hard for too long and virtual turbine blades will fly through your virtual airplane skin. Over speed the gear, and it may not come up, or colaspe when you land.

I think that most military aircraft will go to working TACANs. Very few, if any, modern day TACANs do not have a VOR associated with it. It is a easy database conversion to allow you to dial in the channel and the radio will show the channel, i.e, 22 while the radio will actually tune to 108.5 MHz.

I don't know how hard it is to simulate terrain following radar, but that would be nice, in the aircraft that have it working in their RL counterparts.

[jmig]

...
Not so unlike another airplane I cut my teeth on in the mid to late 60's. . .the Super Saber. I worked on the F-100 for 2 years while I was active Duty and never once heard it called a "Hun", yet when Kazunori Ito came out with his Super Saber and later when the Donationware Super Saber was released, as I was doing research for liveries to repaint, I found site after site referring to it as the Hun. Don't have any idea where it came from but I know we never called it that in the years I worked on it. We called it the "Lead Sled" or the "Super Saber".

I think "Hun" was short for "Hundred." It was the first of the Century fighters.

[Bone]

.......

[Bone]

I can only speak from my own experiences, having worked on the Falcon for 16 years, within the ranks of Crew Chiefs, Specialists and Pilots, I never heard it referred to as the Viper on a daily basis.
Not so unlike another airplane I cut my teeth on in the mid to late 60's. . .the Super Saber. I worked on the F-100 for 2 years while I was active Duty and never once heard it called a "Hun", yet when Kazunori Ito came out with his Super Saber and later when the Donationware Super Saber was released, as I was doing research for liveries to repaint, I found site after site referring to it as the Hun. Don't have any idea where it came from but I know we never called it that in the years I worked on it. We called it the "Lead Sled" or the "Super Saber".

Well, my only point being that I have heard the F-16 refered to as Viper as far back as 1986, and it not being a new name. As to if it is used on a daily basis, I've been an airline pilot for the last 19 years so I wouldn't know. I'll take your word on it, being that you have spent so much time around the F-16.


The name "Hun" comes from the first three letters of Hundred.
<!-- / message -->

[Panther_99FS]

Well,
All I have to say is that THANK GOODNESS the Air Force Academy isn't called "Vipers" :d

[jmig]

According to Keith Rosenkranz in his book, Vipers in the Storm (page 17)

General Dynamics wanted to use the word "Falcon" for the new F-16A. However, the Dassault Fan Jet Falcon aready had the name, "Falcon." so the USAF rejected "Falcon." Other names like, Eaglet & Condor were suggested. Pilots started calling it the "Viper" and that name became popular.

Three years afterward the word "Fighting" was added and the plane officially became the F-16 Fighting Falcon and so christened on July 21 1980 at Hill AFB. Still, the name Viper remained popular.

[empeck]

What I think will happen will be what Acursim has started. Consequences for neglecting your aircraft systems. Run the engine too hard for too long and virtual turbine blades will fly through your virtual airplane skin. Over speed the gear, and it may not come up, or colaspe when you land.

That's what I'd like to see. Without aircraft systems flying the Tomcat is almost the same as Cessna but faster, CTRL+E, and full throttle. :173go1:

[falcon409]

. . . . .Three years afterward the word "Fighting" was added and the plane officially became the F-16 Fighting Falcon and so christened on July 21 1980 at Hill AFB. . . . .
And so it shall always be, thanks jmig!:applause:

[krazycolin]

nothing to see here... Move along!

lol :173go1:

[FAC257]

Falcon or Viper? :)
http://www.f-16.net/articles_article10.html?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=2&pid=27

[yago9]

FX AS F16,a masterpiece no doubt.For the Falcon fans an amazing gift..There is no comparison with any Fs9 model...I didnt read the manual to learn any system,it,s easy to figure out by clicking stuff .It is not a complex aircraft to learn and fly..I have a modest system and i have no frame rate issues.I miss the candy eye things like intakes covers, wheel chocks and other stuff like that..Things like captain sim added on their Fx C-130..That,s my only beef with this model,but i still love it anyway.:applause:

[Panther_99FS]

According to Keith Rosenkranz in his book, Vipers in the Storm (page 17)

General Dynamics wanted to use the word "Falcon" for the new F-16A. However, the Dassault Fan Jet Falcon aready had the name, "Falcon." so the USAF rejected "Falcon." Other names like, Eaglet & Condor were suggested. Pilots started calling it the "Viper" and that name became popular.

Three years afterward the word "Fighting" was added and the plane officially became the F-16 Fighting Falcon and so christened on July 21 1980 at Hill AFB. Still, the name Viper remained popular.

Actually,
The nickname "Fighting Falcon" was awarded on 11 May 1976 --> http://www.f-16.net/articles_article10.html :mixedsmi:

Now because the guy who picked it was enlisted is why I suspect it took until 1980 for the "official" ceremony :d

[BananaBob]

"I don't know what it's called, I just know the sound it makes when it takes another man's life" - Sergeant "Four Leaf" Tayback (Nick Nolte in Tropic Thunder) :costumes:

[jmig]

Actually,
The nickname "Fighting Falcon" was awarded on 11 May 1976 --> http://www.f-16.net/articles_article10.html :mixedsmi:

Now because the guy who picked it was enlisted is why I suspect it took until 1980 for the "official" ceremony :d

:costumes: Sad but probably true.

[idancesafetydance]

Oh man, I REALLY want the AS F-16, My system just sucks too bad for FSX to run smoothly. You FSX guys are taking us FS9 guys fun away :icon_lol:. Now I can't wait to get that new system I've been looking at, who sais I can't buy myself a present.

[IanHenry]

Have any of you tried the F5 Tiger from FlyLogic? I have this model, and to me it’s the spiritual successor to the Cloud 9 F4 Phantom, which was my favourite aircraft in FS9 and was promised to be made a free upgrade to FSX, but that has never happened, and doesn’t look as though it ever will after this length of time.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ian<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

[VaporZ]

Hello IanHenry

I will ask you to take a look at
http://www.flylogicsoftware.com/site/frameset_en.htm

Flylogic FSX Tiger II have even two missions :

- Emmen ( Air Base )
and
- Axalp ( the Swiss Air Force live firing range )

:jump:
VaporZ

http://images.cjb.net/98d07.jpg (http://www.cjb.net/images.html?98d07.jpg)

[Dag]

Hi,

F-100 Super Saber is in fact F-100 Super Sabre as in F-86 Sabre and the sharp weapon. I miss a good one for FS too, bad!!:banghead:

Thanks

[warbird861]

"I don't know what it's called, I just know the sound it makes when it takes another man's life" - Sergeant "Four Leaf" Tayback (Nick Nolte in Tropic Thunder) :costumes:

Oh what a quality movie :friday:

[warbird861]

WTF?!?!?! :isadizzy:

[JorisVandenBerghe]

WTF?!?!?! :isadizzy:
That's because of a bug in the database. Since the database partially crashed a while ago, the number of an edit is matched to the number of a post (at least, I think it was something similar). Nick had about the same 'issue' with it. However, I don't know in which thread he mentioned it.

[djscoo]

"I don't know what it's called, I just know the sound it makes when it takes another man's life" - Sergeant "Four Leaf" Tayback (Nick Nolte in Tropic Thunder) :costumes:
hah! great quote from a hilarious movie! :costumes: