• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Teasers?

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.
 
Bjoern said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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
 
......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...... :biggrin-new:

H
 
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.
Click to expand...

... 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 :

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top