Thoughts about MSFS 11

If FS is a true civil orientated simulator and a few people feel that strongly about combat or military aircraft then we best can all our military related addons and say good bye to some of the most talented designers in the business and make a pact together to refrain from flying our F-14, 15, 16, 18 etc etc etc ever again, plane (pun) and simple. :(

Personally (sorry Heywoood, certainly don't mean to offend or go against your grain here) I hope the combat debate never dies until it is incorporated in some fashion within a future version of FS.

To reiterate myself and a couple others: If the combat side of any future MSFS was to be issued as an upgrade or addon then it is the individual's CHOICE to either go with it or not, therefore no one would have the right to feel slighted, ignored or peeved.

Dedicated combat sims past & present are limited in scope and imagination (I am not saying that they do not possess these attributes before some one jumps down my throat) compared to what designers, dev's, scenery gurus et al could offer within the bounds of a future FS release. Can anyone tell me where I can fly a Panavia Tornado (any marque) in Lockon or any other combat sim? - complete with fully functional NAV suite, two seats, accurate weapon load out of my choice in any convievable squadron paint scheme?

The best imaginations and creativity I have witnessed in MSFS come from those sim enthusiasts who put their minds to designing a military scenario and actually making it work within the confines of the tool he or indeed she has to work with. If one could take the future FS and be able to create what ever scenario he or she wishes where ever in the world - today it could be the BoB, tomorrow Korea, the day after Vietnam etc-together with custom addon aircraft, paint skins, effects, home built sceneries where you want them not premade and where they are placed for you this is why one would require the whole world to play with this is why a lot of folk would compliment the ACES team by requesting "combat".

If anyone can tell me of a combat flight sim that offers more than just one or two countries to fly in complete with real world weather, NAVAIDS, 3rd party scenery & aircraft addon & customization and all the other goodies that FS provides then I will gladly shove my foot in my mouth and never say another word on the subject.

When or where ever this question of "combat" crops up in MSFS circles it and those that are advocates are scorned, ridiculed or otherwise told to put up n shut up. This is a disapointing attitude. MSFS Virtual Military Aircrew are not a minority and are a valid part of this hobby as such we should be given due respect as fellow FS aficionados and therefore granted our right to debate & request.

As a past friend & virtual military colleague (and I hope your reading this SK :d) once said "It's only a game, it's only a game" and I have come to admire that comment.
 
Once you include combat in the base sim, you lose the market that doesn't want it. "Ignoring it" is impossible when the box says "12+" or "Teen" rather than "3+" because the reason for the rating will be provided and it will say "Violence". That's it. That's the end of the sim that's suitable for everyone from 3 to >133.

The only way around this is to put the back-office stuff in to allow for combat, but only make it work with an expansion pack, the same way that carrier ops only work with Acceleration. Will that stifle the creativity? No. There are still ten times as many civilian add-ons uploaded to sites every day compared to the number of military ones. Many of the most creative things to be developed for FS have had nothing at all to do with combat (although, as they are to do with flight, they will still have application within a combat add-on).

The simplistic view of "just ignore it if you don't like it" doesn't work in the real world. Once the content is there, it defines the sim. Much the same way that a lot of people are refusing to switch to FSX because the missions are in there.

Ian P.
 
Ok.. Here is my two cents worth on the FSXI and CFS FSX based platform idea....


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).

Done.....


Next hill to climb?
 
Lionheart said:
Ok.. Here is my two cents worth on the FSXI and CFS FSX based platform idea....


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).

Done.....


Next hill to climb?
Click to expand...


Excellent suggestion :applause:
 
Pultacatt said:
Excellent suggestion :applause:
Click to expand...

Agreed. Perhaps they could be linked with sharing folders, so as not to waste unnecessary hard drive space. A Cessna 172 could be kept in the FS** aircraft folder, and an F-16 could be kept in the sharing one, so you could fly in both situations - peacetime and wartime. And like you say, maybe even create the option to install it in the style of Golden Wings, using the entire FS** world as a base, and having it as a separate sim - but fully compatible.
 
You can do that already, using FSX.cfg - if you create a new "simobject.x=[path]" entry, you can connect to a directory totally outside the sim for objects, so hopefully that will already be being carried forwards into FSNext.

I've made fairly extensive use of different SimObjects folders to allow me to quickly enable and disable FS9 ports, AI models and various other things. It's a useful tool indeed for me.

You've been able to do the same thing with scenery, using the scenery library, since FS5, I believe.

Ian P.
 
IanP said:
You can do that already, using FSX.cfg - if you create a new "simobject.x=[path]" entry, you can connect to a directory totally outside the sim for objects, so hopefully that will already be being carried forwards into FSNext.
Click to expand...

Hence why I suggested it!
 
It seems that not everybody at MS is a total pacifist. I know these aren't all MS. But they had no problem with promoting them on the MS website.

Microsoft Unveils New Titles and Powerful Momentum for Games for Windows

New titles added to the Games for Windows portfolio; Games for Windows initiative and MSN Games going strong.

<table style="margin-left: 15px;" align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="165"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>LAS VEGAS — Jan. 7, 2008 — Following one of the hottest years in video game history, Microsoft Corp. today announced at the 2008 International CES the addition of new titles to the Games for Windows portfolio a...


CES attendees will get to experience some of the great games of 2008, with six upcoming Games for Windows titles on the show floor: “Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures” (Funcom, Eidos Interactive), “Conflict: Denied Ops” (Eidos Interactive), “Frontlines: Fuel of War” (THQ), “Space Siege” (SEGA), “Turning Point: Fall of Liberty” (Codemasters) and “Jigsaw Too Photo Edition” (Carbonated Games), a game for Windows Live Messenger.
Delivering Great Games
Microsoft announced the addition of nine new Games for Windows-branded titles... New Games for Windows-branded titles announced at CES include the following:
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Alone in the Dark” (Atari)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Bionic Commando” (Capcom)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem"> “Conflict: Denied Ops” (Eidos Interactive)
 </td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Empire: Total War” (SEGA)
 </td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“LEGO Indiana Jones” (LucasArts)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Microsoft Train Simulator 2” (Microsoft Game Studios)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem"> “Sins of a Solar Empire” (Stardock)
 </td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Space Siege” (SEGA)
</td></tr><tr><td class="listBullet" valign="top">•</td><td class="listItem">“Tomb Raider: Underworld” (Eidos Interactive)
 </td></tr></tbody></table>Other highly anticipated Games for Windows-branded titles expected to release in 2008 include “Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures” (Funcom, Eidos Interactive), “Borderlands” (2K Games), “The Club” (SEGA), “Fallout<sup>®</sup> 3” (Bethesda Softworks<sup>®</sup>) and “Frontlines: Fuel of War” (THQ).
 
Where did anyone say that MS was pacifist? Gears of War? HALO? Three Combat Flight Simulators? I'd hardly say that was promoting pacificsm. :tgun2: :sniper:

What's more funny is looking down that list and going "That was crud. That was crud. That was crud. Highly anticipated? Yeesh!" :icon_lol:

Ian P.
 
spotlope said:
Seems like you need to cool out a little, Mud. Dropping bombs sounds like combat to me... and yes, it's most uncivil. Sorry for implying that you and I were on friendly terms. My mistake.
Click to expand...

You disagree, fine. Don't use my name and call me out and expect me to ignore it. And don't assume I'm need to cool out. I'm sick of peace-nick cruds who think their freedoms come free! Don't think to tell me what is "civil" and isn't......I seem to remember a civilian airliner that was used to kill thousands of people in NYC. Enjoy the freedom to your opinion provided by thousands of veteran's alive and dead who served their country selflessly.......many of whom dropped "un-civil" bombs.

Here's a forum hint: State your opinion. If you disagree don't use someone else's post to make your point. It may lead to passionate disagreements.
 
Aces has no intention of adding combat to FS , They have hinted (Paul P12C ) there is a possibility it may develop cf4 after FS11. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
That said there is every possibility that some 3PD will pull it out of the hat, the problems are not at all insurmountable but it does require a special combination of capacity to pull it off , the parties involved need to be highly innovative in their use of XML part code , top class in modelling technique and optimization of poly and texture use or the results will be unusable on anything less than a super computer, furthermore the parties in question need a server network to support a custom simconnect dll as well as the bandwidth and architecture to support the traffic .<o:p></o:p>
Having access to the very best minds in the business is also going to be a factor because it’s a team that’s going to be needed , the task is too large to be managed by one person ... these are the steps that must be taken and there are few that fill the shoes .... wish them luck , they need it.
 
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.
 
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 :173go1:

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
 
MudMarine said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 :wavey:

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
Click to expand...

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

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! :kilroy:

Also mud, you CAN drop bombs, but its up to the 3rd partys do to it ;)
 
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.
 
Also mud, you CAN drop bombs, but its up to the 3rd partys do to it
Click to expand...

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