Just canvassing opinion here, you know I always enjoyed MSFS ... the civilian version but it seems they are out to rip off users with the next version.Look here:http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/op-ed/ed365.htmLook at this thread for my answer.http://forums.flightsim.com/dc/dcboard.php...e=&topic_page=1What about you all?

Uh where does that article say anything about MS doing that? That's two people's opinion pieces, not someone from MS saying what they're gonna do for FS10? As long as they fix the outstanding issues with the civilian portion of the sim FIRST, I have no problem at all with support for military weapons being added. (provided there's a way to disable them in civilian multiplayer of course) If that were the case, that's more features in the sim not ripping off users...

Don't we have enough violent games for the children to learn the skills needed for killing without corrupting a flight simulator to satisfy the apparent need for more violence. If some of the people who must see explosions, maimed bodies, etc. influence Flight Simulator-nnnn I will not buy the next version. Flight Simulator is "supposed" to simulate the functional experience of FLYING a real airplane as closely as possible given the level of programming talent, the PC capabilities, and the marketplace. If the "blood & guts" crowd want violent combat based flight they can find that in a number of other games. I hope that Microsoft keeps their eye on the ball and ignores such childish requests.Dick Boley @KLBE

AMEN to that!I agree with everything Dick said. Let's keep Flight Simulator a civilian FS and not some mindless shoot-em-up, blood & guts game!What's next? Shoe-bomber and maniacal high-jacking addons?Pete S.

As a historical point for those that were not around then, the first versions of fs ever produced had a world war one fighter game included that you could blast around in.Since all the combat flight sims from microsoft have been based on the fs engine I don't see how adding this to the sim would take away anything from it-it would be adding more features.Personally I have no interest in combat sims, but I don't see that it would be a bad thing-might bring even a bigger market share in which would benefit all-considering the piracy issues that threaten to take the whole thing down.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

How to respond? Some of you think combat simming is for kids?:-roll There are plenty of adults who play combat sims and more serious wargames and sims. Even chess is kind of an abstract wargame and there are plenty like myself who want to recreate history as much as possible...from FMs to the strategic situation, nothing more challenging than using an inferior plane against a superior one with tactics to try to make up for it as happened in the war. Rant over.The point is I recall CFS1 where it was possible to destroy tanks with machine guns...the DM improved since then but I still can't see how MS can add AI for ground and air targets and a campaign system...and how are we supposed to simulate WWI or WWII over modern day Europe for example? Yea we can switch out scenery but we would have to shut down all the modern navaids etc. Sorry still think would be a mistake for Ms to consider ... and read what one fellow wrote on the thread at FS.com, he is forwarding the comments to MS. Still wish MS would continue with their CFS series but in another theatre.

Count me in also. If there is anything that shoots or blows up in FS10 I, for one, won't be buying it.Doug

Possibly the answer is a little more complex, if you think of the permutations this might present. I'm with you guys - I'll never use FS as a combat game, although I do own combat games and I do like to play them, they don't fit with my profile as to what simming is about. and frankly Pacific Fighters and IL-2 did for CFS from MS because they weren't hamstrung with the use of Direct3D. But what if the opportunity to interract with the environment and other `things` could give rise to better and more realistic simulation of real airborne issues? Birdstrike, foreign object damage, fire/heat damage. Intake blockage, even icing? All we are really talking about is lines of code which permit object A to interface in a dynamic manner with Object B, using Force C. I wouldn't be so quick to poo-poo the idea, although I don't think in todays climate there is even the remotest possibility of FS being a Fight, rather than Flight, Simulator.Allcott

How can adding more options ot the sim be a "ripoff"??????I wish it DID have combat capabilities. Actually I wouldn't think it would be hard and wouldn't affect the sim at all to have a patch to enable this in FS9 at the moment. We have the effects and the damage profiles, just needs to be tweaked and key combat advanced features added. Once this is done, then all eras and types of combat can be simulated. CFS2 was my first sim. After I figured out how the game structure worked, I ported all the modern scenery from FS2000 into it and I flew all kinds of civilian aircraft in CFS2, it was a much better engine and performed better than FS2000.Flying a high speed military jet in combat is a lot more challenging than taking the 172 on a ciruit around your local airport. If you don't want to utilize the combat part, then don't, but don't deny those that want the choice of having it. I feel it would bring a larger appeal for those like myself that do fly both.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Hi guys,Interesting discussion , no doubt about.Most PC games on the market , are full of violence , guns and blood.All these (somewhat sick human behaveour)simulating games are selling good.Most serious simmers are not talking about Fs9 as a game , but as a simulator.In my opinion you must be quiet in sane , to have the desire to actually simulate disaster for pleasure.And if you really want so , buy such a game , everyone is free to do so.BUT please keep our simulator free of all this nonsense.RegardsLeen de Jagerthe Netherlandsps: Whenever MS decides to implement violence in their Fs10 , they can , in my opinion , implement virtual sex as well ( the damage to the game/sim has been done already then).Imagine , having sex in a jacuzzi onboard a 747 while flying over the Bahamas.Lets hope it will never come so far.

How about a compromise where its guns only and only available in M.O.A.'s? That way it doesnt interfer with mulitplayer sessions and it keeps civilian and miltary within their boundaries.Want to dog fight with a friend take it to a M.O.A., want to fly in multiplayer without worring about being shot at then avaiod the M.O.A.'s.Sounds fair enough to me and quite realistic.Kilstorm

>As a historical point for those that were not around then,>the first versions of fs ever produced had a world war one>fighter game included that you could blast around in.>>Since all the combat flight sims from microsoft have been>based on the fs engine I don't see how adding this to the sim>would take away anything from it-it would be adding more>features.>>Personally I have no interest in combat sims, but I don't see>that it would be a bad thing-might bring even a bigger market>share in which would benefit all-considering the piracy issues>that threaten to take the whole thing down.>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgYeah I remember the wire frame FS with the WW1 included, but that was a different time and program!I think adding a combat code would definitely take away from the FS portion simply because the combined sims would have to be adapted to each other in order to interact. There are enough dedicated Flight Combat sims which are much better, since that is all they do. I guess MS gave up on their version because it took too much time and money, so I don't see how incorporating CF into FS would make it any better or more efficient!As far as object strikes and their effects on FS, that can be modeled into the sim without having a full blown combat engine. We already have crashes and collisions!Pete S.

If I want a combat sim, I will play CFS 1-3 or Lock On. When I want to transport passengers or take a virtual trip around my neighborhood airport, I will load up FS9. Don't corupt my civilian FS with your war machine! (It is my opinion that although it may be requested by the masses of people. MS would never put missles in a civilian flight sim.)Peace!Kev

well said. It would ruin online flying for certain as little kids would hop in and start shooting at people (they already try to ram people).Go ahead, make more arguments for the crowd who wants to ban flightsim because it can (theoretically) be used to train hijackers and terrorists.

Alcott opined:"But what if the opportunity to interract with the environment and other `things` could give rise to better and more realistic simulation of real airborne issues? Birdstrike, foreign object damage, fire/heat damage. Intake blockage, even icing?" I have no problem with any of that. In fact, I'd welcome the increased level of realism. But bombs and guns? I would really hate to see anything military included at the expense of other non-military development (which would surely suffer).Doug