The Underrated F-16 Sim

[Peg o my heart]

Hello
Its been so many years since Aerosoft and Irissim released their F-16s. It seems that no one has been seriously considering remaking/upgrading the existing options. Ive read a handful of comparisons but I havent decided, I am not expecting much thou, just a pretty accurate FDE and a reasonably good avionics. Which one should I go? Never have I been a big fan of F-16 but the air force receiving more and more upgraded units from the us and seeing them everyday change my perception these days :). Sorry if this topic is a bit of repetition, im sure today's standard might expand new horizon in giving opinions to the older falcons. Thank you sir

[xpelekis]

I prefer much better the Aerosoft one. Reason is, cockpit of the Iris one,
looks to old for FSX modern standards.

[WarHorse47]

Does it really matter? The IRIS F-16 is no longer available on their site, so that only leaves Aerosoft and the Kirk Olssen's versions.

[huub vink]

Isn't the Aerosoft one a single seater and wasn't the Iris one a dual seater?

[rezn550]

actually i think there was a thread at the aerosoft forum where they considered or asked the community what they think about a reworked f-16
unfortunately i don't know what happend to that plan.

but if you really like to work with the f-16 i would recommend "falcon bms" simulator.
not the best graphic wise but definitely more system deep than in fsx

[Daube]

I'm also interested in the feedback from the owners. For now, I don't have any F-16 on my sim. I would enjoy a realistic one, though.
As far as I know, only 3 F-16 were made for FS:

the freeware one from Kirk Olsson: it looks good externally, thanks for photorealistic textures, but the cockpit is outdated and not realistic. It's an old FS9 plane, after all...
the IRIS one: this one looked ok but, as mentionned by Huub Vink, I believe it was a two seater, and I don't like that shape.
the Aerosoft one: single seater, nice 3D model, very nice photorealistic textures inside and out, but it has a few quirks:
- it has a very bad fame regarding the hit on the FPS
- the avionics is probably very light (this was a long time before TacPact etc...)
- I believe it has no load manager, so you get one model with tanks, another model with bombs, another one with missiles etc.... which makes countless useless entries in the hangar. Please correct me if I'm wrong ?

[falcon409]

Just a minor addition (although it's instantly irrelevant due to it's no longer available, lol), the Lago F-16 was the first payware Falcon produced for Flight Sim. Just wanted to throw that in there to complete the list.

[Sundog]

The Aerosoft bird is my favorite, but KO made so many variations I would love to have all of those to FSX standards. I wonder if anyone has merged his models with the Aerosoft cockpit? Also, as noted up thread, the Iris model was only a two seater, but it was a nice model.

Anyway, I know Aerosoft was looking at making an updated F-16 that would be closer in quality and fidelity to their F-14.

[flaviossa]

Yes, IRIS is a two seater. I still fly with it as it has a sleek look:
http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2015/10/25/2015-10-25_14-46-44-905.jpg

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2015/10/25/2015-10-25_14-49-41-777.jpg

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2015/10/25/2015-10-25_14-49-30-729.jpg

Got the Aerosoft thru Steam some time ago, but had some regrets as no repaints, etc.

BUT, if you really want to fly a F16 in all it´s glory i suggest trying Falcon BMS 4.32. Nice missions and visualy acceptable.
GOG is selling it at U$5.99: http://www.gog.com/game/falcon_collection

[Naismith]

The Kirk Olson one has been tweaked and altered so much it is quite different from the original Viper model, Simviation seems to be the place where the tweakers live. check out those by Danny Garnier or Michael Pook

[Stefano Zibell]

Keep in mind that Falcon BMS requires a copy of the original Falcon 4.0.

I believe gog.com just started selling it, but I don't know if that copy satisfies the BMS installer requirement.

[flaviossa]

Keep in mind that Falcon BMS requires a copy of the original Falcon 4.0.

I believe gog.com just started selling it, but I don't know if that copy satisfies the BMS installer requirement.


Yes, it satisfies. I installed it again this week because i bought a copy from GOG. The install process works perfectly.

[Naismith]

Keep in mind that Falcon BMS requires a copy of the original Falcon 4.0.

I believe gog.com just started selling it, but I don't know if that copy satisfies the BMS installer requirement.

Actually it only needs the exe file from F4

[Victory103]

Got them both and flew the IRIS more based on a coder in my USAF VA making additions to the avionics, using F-BMS as a basis (radar, HARM). The avionics in the Iris have more depth, with a working UFCP, allowing more use out of the DED menu pages. The Iris came with a great sound pack. That said, I purchased the add-on Aerosoft missions for the F-16, mainly to learn how to make missions, but have some fun with the aircraft again. The FDE seems to powerful and I can see the slight FPS hit in the VC.

If you are a hardcore Viper driver, then work to get Falcon-BMS on your system or wait for something for DCS-W.

On the freeware side, I do agree using Kirk's models, having model in FS9 for years. Don't forget to get the Eric M. radar/HUD, pretty cheap:
http://emarciano.free.fr/En/F16panel.htm

[Scandinavian]

You can get Falcon 4 extremely cheap now from GOG along with the other Falcon games before #4.

http://www.gog.com/game/falcon_collection (http://www.gog.com/game/falcon_collection)

[Daube]

The problem in F4-BMS is that you will enjoy the systems of the plane, but you won't be able to enjoy the simple flight, because the environment is so outdated.
In FSX, it's the contrary: the environment is excellent, but we cannot enjoy the systems.

The difference is that F4-BMW will never receive an environment like FSX, while FSX can receive appropriate systems like F4-BMS :)

[Dino Cattaneo]

Well...

The F-16 IMHO is the elephant in the room of the missing FSX/P3Dv2 models.
A good, up-to-date F-16 would be great... I have to confess I considered making one, but my schedule is full.

[xpelekis]

The problem in F4-BMS is that you will enjoy the systems of the plane, but you won't be able to enjoy the simple flight, because the environment is so outdated.
In FSX, it's the contrary: the environment is excellent, but we cannot enjoy the systems.

The difference is that F4-BMW will never receive an environment like FSX, while FSX can receive appropriate systems like F4-BMS :)

That's also my point of view. Admitting that I'm not a great fun of F-16 anyway, nor a hardcore combat simmer (vintage flyer mostly, up to 2nd generation jets).
But no current simulator can beat that :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFWUmDkJcw

FSX (P3D) can be customized so much to match the personal taste / preferences of user, that no other sim currently offers.
Though off topic a bit, I really don't get why people rush to propose Falcon BMS every time a question or video about F-16 in FSX,
pops up... I'm pretty sure "Peg o my heart" knows about BMS (probably by day 1 of it's existence) but he asks about FSX that he cares about.
My intention is not to offend anybody that posted above ! BMS is certainly a great sim (even objectively, regarding F-16) for those that care
about this kind of simming.

[expat]

Played F 4.0 and e.g., FreeFalcon and early BMS stuff before getting into MSFS almost ten years ago now.

Still have the F 4.0 disc and hard copy manual. Doesn't it crash using Nvidea cards? Tried it a while ago and didn't get very far.

Agree with analysis re relative interior vs exterior merits. Of course, as a combat sim the "campaign engine/generator" in Falcon was impressive and is what would make FS optimal.

[Penz]

Well...

The F-16 IMHO is the elephant in the room of the missing FSX/P3Dv2 models.
Couldn't agree more Dino.

In my opinion both the AS and IRIS ones have good and not so good points, although I personally prefer the IRIS, because the ICP and MFD's work more like the "real" F-16 sim (I bought Falcon 4 the day it was released, and have used all the community mods up to the current BMS ...).

Trouble is that it's really hard to mention an F-16 in any simulator without inevitably making the comparison to Falcon4++. I also suppose that's why FSX/P3D developers could be reluctant to take on the project; all us old gnarly ex-Frugalites will be all over it. ;)

[ST0RM]

I own both the Aerosoft and IRIS F-16s. Back in the FS9 days, I also had the LAGO Viper. It rocked for it's day.

There have been a few articles describing the differences between the two models, but my observations are different from the reviews.

The Aerosoft model feels heavy. The elevators are ineffective and the turn rate abysmal. Trying to take-off requires nearly 200kts and landing speeds are also very high. It did not have a FBW feel. And I caould never trim off the heaviness. Visibility through the canopy is modeled with a tinted canopy so everything is naturally darker. Not a fan. Sounds are weak as well.
On the plus, they model nearly every single seater out there, but a few are mis-matched with the wrong country/users. Avionics are better than the IRIS jet.
I do have a slight bone to pick with Aerosoft after buying their F-14. It's still awaiting a patch to fix numerous issues and they have slow rolled any further development. They did mention a TackPack F-16, but I havent seen or heard anything in a few years.

IRIS...unavailable. Better sounds, weights/feel vary by model, flight model is lighter and feels like a FBW jet. Avionics are basic. Of the two, I did prefer this one though. I even tried porting over the IRIS FM into the Aerosoft model. Then it'd be perfect, IMO.

Oh well...

-Jeff

[DaveB]

Dust covers taken off..

http://daveb.cbfsim.org/public/f16s2.jpg

As Jeff said.. they're very different models to fly. Some aspects are modelled better on one.. others better on the other. I don't fly either much but generally keep the AS model 'available. Little overall to choose between the two.
ATB
DaveB:)

[Peg o my heart]

Very very descriptive gents, thank you. Dino, I couldnt agree more, and just by saying you might make one if you have the time is really encouraging.

Dean, is it? one of the Irissim crews here at SOH? Dean, im not sure why the F-16 isnt available anymore on your site, but if you read this, I wonder if there is a way I can purchase the F-16?? Thanks

[Peg o my heart]

Very very descriptive gents, thank you. Dino, I couldnt agree more, and just by saying you might make one if you have the time is really encouraging.

Jeff, thanks for the desc. Dean, is it? one of the Irissim crews here at SOH? Dean, im not sure why the F-16 isnt available anymore on your site, but if you read this, I wonder if there is a way I can purchase the F-16?? Thanks

[jandmbear]

exactly. The Aersoft offering is all that is available, so the question I moot



Does it really matter? The IRIS F-16 is no longer available on their site, so that only leaves Aerosoft and the Kirk Olssen's versions.

[jandmbear]

If you ever made one, I know it would without a doubt be the best one so far!:a1310:



Well...

The F-16 IMHO is the elephant in the room of the missing FSX/P3Dv2 models.
A good, up-to-date F-16 would be great... I have to confess I considered making one, but my schedule is full.