I'd like to fly fighters for a while - tired of tubeliners.  First, I know I'm not a developer.  No time.  Some expertise.  I'm not hacking on anyone in particular or any vendor or distributor, this is just a general venting of frustration.

 

I purchased an aircraft the other day.  Was happy until I really dived into it.  Error after error after error.

 

Let me go back in time.  I am a former USAF crewchief.  I have a LOT of experience with the F-16 (all variants), some experience with the F-15E, F-4E, and A-10A.  So I know how to start one, how to taxi one if necessary (US Air Force frowns on that after a guy stole a C-130 due to stress and family reasons, but that's another story), set up the systems, set up a nuke ckeckout, etc.  I know which external stores configurations are RL, and which are implausible. 

 

The only "study sim" of an F-16 is the unit in Falcon 4.0, but not FSX.  The only "study sim" of the A-10C is Eagle Dynamics, but not FSX.  Everything else is, well, a toy to toss around the sky and pretend, but the systems are either non-existent, lean, or so incorrect as to be a joke.  Some are years ahead of others, but there is no "PMDG of USAF modern fighters".

 

I keep seeing terms misused.  The F-16 and F-15 do not have APU's.  They have JFS's.  No external power is necessary to start.  F-4 needs external air, and sometimes external power, but mostly, no.  A-10 has an APU.  Different from a JFS.  Similar in use, similar in operation.  Not the same.  Watching the videos from the makers or "reps" of the maker, and their terminology is wrong, Methods of starting and operating the aircraft are wrong.

 

I know what the gages do, when they do it, and what else happens system-wise when doing certain things.  Have not found ONE that is remotely correct.

 

Instrument lighting - bad.  Exterior lights - incorrect and/or bad.  REALLY bad in some instances.  Missing lights.  Wrong type of lights.  Flight characteristics (I've ridden in the back seat of every aircraft named above, and know how they handle) - inaccurate in the FSX world.

 

So, just a vent.  Not aimed at any vendor or person, just wishing someone somewhere would get it right.  Many of these aircraft are great looking, some are perfect to scale, some sound great inside and out, but...systems are NG.

 

One vendor has the radar operating on ground power prior to start in one vid.  NO WAY.  You have to disable the WOW switches or place the aircraft on tripod jacks to run the radar.

 

I'm sure someone will not like my comments, but again, this is just my general comments based on RL experience.    It is not a troll.

 

PMDG and Majestik has spoiled me.

 

EDIT:  Most of my info came from watching videos on youtube of people running/flying these aircraft.  In fairness to the developers, it's possible the person making the video was making the mistakes, or making a fairly decent sim aircraft look totally wrong.

Yep.  You're pretty much correct on all points there.  To be fair, I'm more into USN aviation than USAF, but there are pretty slim pickings in military representation in FSX for sure, as opposed to say, airliners or GA.  The one study sim that I can think of course would be VRS's F/A-18E/F, but obviously not quite what you're looking for, wrong service and all.

 

There may be a few things down the road; Metal2Mesh is working on their own version of the F-15E; currently they offer an avionics upgrade for the Iris model.  I do believe that A2A is working on an F-4, however it will be a long ways away since they are planning on releasing the F-104 first, and that still seems to be a ways off. (Although I'm looking forward to both, I'm actually more excited about the F-104.)

 

Part of the problem (in my opinion) is that military jets are a small niche in an already small market, yet have a very high development cost since the systems, as you've pointed out, can be so complex.  Combine that with a level of unfamiliarity of many developers with the intricate (and perhaps poorly documented in some cases) nature of the systems, and combine that with whats very likely to be a very small group of developers talented enough to code such a plane, and you wind up with the current situation: lots of eye-candy, very few study sims.

 

It's lamentable perhaps, but as you may notice by the lack of responses at the major simulation forums to topics like this, not even noticed by most FSX simmers.

I have to agree that you've pretty much probably hit the nail on the head. I am going to look into that upgraded avionics suite for the Strike Eagle, thanks for putting me onto that.

While technically correct, a JFS is in every way identical to what is called an APU in the civilian world:

 

The Jet Fuel Starter (JFS) is a simple, scaled down jet engine (often called as APU - Auxuliary Power Unit - in civilian aviation) fitted centrally between the two engines - see (15) on the figure below. It is used to start the two engines (in fact it's the only way of starting them).

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/engines/97-jet-fuel-starter

The procedure described is identical to that used by at least one vendor's F15E with which I'm familiar...

While technically correct, a JFS is in every way identical to what is called an APU in the civilian world:

 

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology/engines/97-jet-fuel-starter

The procedure described is identical to that used by at least one vendor's F15E with which I'm familiar...

 

It only uses the hydrazine too..

No hydrazine in JFS use, and an APU can generate 115VAC 400Hz, while a JFS can only be used for up to two or 3 minute motoring before it has to be shut down.  APU's can be ran as long as needed.  Also, because of JFS hyd accumulator blowdown or HSM failure in RL, F-15 and F-16 aircraft have an external connection to attach bleed air from a -60 GPU or equivalent. 

 

The F-16 EPU (emergency power unit) uses hydrazine.

It only uses the hydrazine too..

Not only what the Topic starter just said but a JFS will NOT provide Electrical power to the AC. It is only used for bleed air to start the P&W.

Previous F-16 Chief.

It's probably even more difficult to obtain reliable RW information for flightsim development for a military plane than for a commercial Airbus ...

If you're happy with going outside of modern USAF aircraft then the Milviz F86 is a nice jet as is the Lotus Simulations L-39 Albatross, one of my favourite aircraft.

 

Sim Skunk Works do very good deep simulations and their current offerings are the AV-8B, the F104G + S and the F84 Thunderjet.

 

Dino's T-45 is an excellent navy trainer and very well done. Of course the VRS F-18 is one of the deepest simulations out there period.

 

As you've said with the others I think of them as really giving me a flavour of what a military jet has to offer and under FSX I'm not going to get the full experience like would with DCS anyway.

I've been thinking about that F-18...  it looks good.

Previous F-16 Chief.

 

Me too! 15 yrs in the TAMS career field.  Crewdawgs rule!

I've been thinking about that F-18...  it looks good.

 

Me too! 15 yrs in the TAMS career field.  Crewdawgs rule!

You've got me. I only did 4 years at Nellis. Although it was in early 80's. Solid cold war. Played games once a month and of course Red Flag. Nothing like 160 degree ramp temp with eight birds running wearing a full chem suit. OOps my mask came off----lol.

Kaatz....tried the VRS F/A-18 with TacPack yet?

 

Not Air Force i know, but the next best thing.

 

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i239/DavidT_photo/FSX/9.jpg

Yeah, I'm taking a good look at that F-18.

I can recommend the Iris F-15E with the M2M avionics upgrade.  I've only had it for a week, but I'm starting to get further into it's systems.  I can also vouch for the Superbug and Tacpack.  The F-15E will be Tacpack compatible soon, and M2M is also working on making a variant for DCS.

 

There definitely much military interest on Avism, this is a pretty MSFS-centric forum.  Most military simmers want to fight, and FSX doesn't lend itself easily to that.  I much prefer it to DCS and Falcon though, because the whole world is available, and the visuals are far superior.

 

PM me if you ever wanna link up for multiplayer flight; military aircraft are always more fun to fly with others.

Ok, will do!