On another forum, I watched a discussion that whined about the lack of weapons capability in FS. Eventually it became clear there are a number of people who want the capability of shooting at things without fear of being shot at. In other words, their idea of "combat" is to sneak up behind an unarmed civilian airline and blow it out of the sky with a missle or make ground attacks on places like O'Hare or LAX.I agree with the general consensus -- keep FS(XXXX) civilian.Cal (CYXX)

I wouldn't have any problems with some increased military elements.But people seem to forget that the vast majority of military aircraft time is (or rather was until recently) peace time operations. It would not be wise to try and turn FS into something like Lomac, and try to model full air to air style avionics and go to war, but in all honesty, it would be nice to have some weapons range sceneries around for practice bombing, as well as actually dropping those bombs and having a FAC call out your score.This is FS though and just like there is an option to turn off mid-air collisions, if missiles and guns ever did appear, you can bet there would be an option to turn them off for people that don't want them.

Perhaps not missiles put maybe some practice stuff to drop from your military jet? And some peacetime scenariosI see the following 'fun' scenarios- Water bombing on forrest fires- Paracute dropping. Drop paracutist over the dropzone and prepare to factor in the wind direction and speed. (looks to me like great peacfull fun)- dropable fuel tanks that influence aircraft drag and weight- Drop dumb practice bombs on target range/area. Just practice ordenance that gives a puff off smoke when hitting the ground. Drop out of the designated target area and FS shuts down (you're fired!)- Fire some unguided rockets to ground target but these must be strictly in a designated target zone (practice range). Again just a puff off smoke and maybe a score on how well on target yo are.- Intercept recon aircraft with a scramble/ guided radar intercept. Objective is just to get a visual on the aircraft. Recon aircraft reacts on the interception by going home. Maybe for the diehard an option to lock on the recon aircraft after which it returns home.Perhaps you noticed by this that I am a child of the coldwar ;-). Most of these ideas don't need extensive modifications with specialist battle AI or blow up terrain. It keeps with the professional flightsim theme and just adds the possibility to have a peacetime airforce career.

The main argument I've had against adding this (or any type of combat) to MSFS is it would introduce more code, more bloat, and more risk of bogging down the sim with features that most of its current core audience don't seem to want. I am not critical of anyone who enjoys combat sims, but MSFS has really built up its reputation in recent years as a civilian sim. It was pointed out that the original sims did include the WW1 game, but that's been gone by the wayside for a long while now.Anyway, heads up--this is a very sensitive issue. I know people who have experienced combat who would disavow the sim if it included the same, and I know people who've experienced combat who would yearn for these features--not because they're cold blooded killers, but because they experienced a life or death struggle, and a sense of friendship and depending on your fellow brothers (and sisters), that combat sims help them relive and in a certain sense, release some of the stress memories of combat hold.Please bear this in mind when people vote yay or nay... No one is at fault for either opinion.-John

Combat sim's aren't for kids, rather they are for people who get a sick enjoyment out of the rush of violence. I too, will take no part in the next FLIGHT simulator if they introduce violence into a game that needs none of it. If you want to blow things up, go buy one of the millions of other games out there. Leave the killing out of one of the only civilized games left.

I honestly dont see any problem with M.O.A.'s being able to be hot. Thats what they are for. I have no desire to combat with any building, player or AI but it would be nice to have M.O.A.'s as a place for those that do want to play combat.I mean FS is shipped to show no damage to planes until the user modifies the CFG file to show it. To me it could be done the same way. ATC knows when your in a certain airspace so only those effects to happen in M.O.A.I see it as a happy medium reflective of real life that allows new users to purchase the sim.either way I dont care but do take a stand on the side that it could be implemented into the sim with certain restrictions that would make most users happy.Kilstorm

>Perhaps not missiles put maybe some practice stuff to drop>from your military jet? And some peacetime scenarios>>I see the following 'fun' scenarios>- Water bombing on forrest fires>- Paracute dropping. Drop paracutist over the dropzone and>prepare to factor in the wind direction and speed. (looks to>me like great peacfull fun)>- dropable fuel tanks that influence aircraft drag and weight>- Drop dumb practice bombs on target range/area. Just practice>ordenance that gives a puff off smoke when hitting the ground.>Drop out of the designated target area and FS shuts down>(you're fired!)>- Fire some unguided rockets to ground target but these must>be strictly in a designated target zone (practice range).>Again just a puff off smoke and maybe a score on how well on>target yo are.>- Intercept recon aircraft with a scramble/ guided radar>intercept. Objective is just to get a visual on the aircraft.>Recon aircraft reacts on the interception by going home. Maybe>for the diehard an option to lock on the recon aircraft after>which it returns home.>>Perhaps you noticed by this that I am a child of the coldwar>;-). Most of these ideas don't need extensive modifications>with specialist battle AI or blow up terrain. It keeps with>the professional flightsim theme and just adds the possibility>to have a peacetime airforce career.YES I fully agree with that.Leen de Jager

I want more realism in the flying experience-- now how can I know what is "real" because I am not a pilot. I never will be a real life flyer - but I would like to know what it feels like. Now, I can fly a lot of Sim a/c - but I don't know if I am flying "correctly". Flying an a/c in real life involves much more that taking off and landing -- there is a strong chance that you risk your life whenever you leave the ground in real life and also you may lose your licence if you do something incorrect.So for me, I would dearly love to see a full comprehensive set of lessons - far more advanced and involved than those we are used to in the Sim with a proper career path mapped out(none of this learning to fly a 172 and then transitioning direct to a 747), involving not only the ability to fly but information needed to pass exams in real life. Maybe then I would get some idea of what it really means to be a real-life flyer -- right now, we really treat Fsim as a joke -- the a/c are far too easy to fly and we fly them anywhere in the world that we care to. Somebody mentioned that they would like to see ATC fixed up - so that he doesn't have a 747 overtaking him on approach. In my part of the world , I doubt very much that you would ever get anywhere near an airport that lands 747s as the landing costs for my C172 at that airport would be prohibitive. So FS2004 is far removed for true reality.Barry

>Combat sim's aren't for kids, rather they are for people who>get a sick enjoyment out of the rush of violence. I too, will>take no part in the next FLIGHT simulator if they introduce>violence into a game that needs none of it. If you want to>blow things up, go buy one of the millions of other games out>there. Leave the killing out of one of the only civilized>games left.If you believe that you are truly narrow minded. I suppose we should ban history books, smash all static models with a military theme as well?Anyway I agree to keep it seperate.

I think they have always used the same engine (with the cf series always ahead) so I don't see that it would need much adaptation. Mostly the addition of "effects" (look at the crash effects available now for fs) and a programmed logic probably no different than taking a flight lesson.I can't remember exactly, but when cfII came out I figured out a way to get the scenery from cfII into Fs (or visa vera) so that the improvements in the new engine could be used. It can't be that difficult...Anyway-again I really have no interest. But I do have concerns that this article brings up of Microsoft losing interest in the project due to high piracy rates etc. If making the product open up to even a bigger market saves its' neck and allows more improvements-then I am for it!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Combat sim's aren't for kids, rather they are for people who>get a sick enjoyment out of the rush of violence. Wow. Nice blanket statement.The combat sim community is as mature and reasonable as the general FS9 community (moreso in many cases, it seems). For the most part, combat sims (not arcade games -- but sims such as the old Micropose Stuff, IL-2/Pacific Fighters, Silent Hunter. LOMAC, Falcon or whataver) are very respectful of the subject matter. They can also be VERY challenging in terms of the complexity of the systems and flight models. The radar systems in something like Falcon 4.0 is like programming a FMC while being shot at.The machinery of war is a very important aspect of our history, and there have been thousands of honerable men and women who have been a part of that history. Combat sims, allow us -- in some small measure -- to put ourselves in their shoes.I very much doubt that Microsoft will include combat in the next generation of the sim, and if they do I hope it doesn't detract from the GA and CA elements. That said, some of the comments here about "mindless shoot em ups" really leaves me scratching my head. Anyone who is at all familiar with the history of PC gaming or the complexity of these sims wouldn't make that sort of comment.

>>If you believe that you are truly narrow minded. I suppose we should ban history books, smash all static models with a military theme as well?>>Ban books??? When did I say that? I just have a problem getting enjoyment out of violence. At least a book is informative>>Wow. Nice blanket statement.>>The combat sim community is as mature and reasonable as the>general FS9 community (moreso in many cases, it seems). For>the most part, combat sims (not arcade games -- but sims such>as the old Micropose Stuff, IL-2/Pacific Fighters, Silent>Hunter. LOMAC, Falcon or whataver) are very respectful of the>subject matter. They can also be VERY challenging in terms of>the complexity of the systems and flight models. The radar>systems in something like Falcon 4.0 is like programming a FMS>while being shot at.>>The machinery of war is a very important aspect of our>history, and there have been thousands of honerable men and>women who have been a part of that history. Combat sims, allow>us -- in some small measure -- to put ourselves in their>shoes.>>I very much doubt that Microsoft will include combat in the>next generation of the sim, and if they do I hope it doesn't>detract from the GA and CA elements. That said, some of the>comments here about "mindless shoot em ups" really leaves me>scratching my head. Anyone who is at all familiar with the>history of PC gaming or the complexity of these sims wouldn't>make that sort of comment.>>>War might be vary important, but that still gives me the right to dispise it and refuse to get enjoyment out of the suffering. What do you have a degree in PC gaming? It isn't that complicated to understand, and any gamer past the age of 20 knows the history well enough. The point is, you play a game filled with violence, you are getting mindless enjoyment out of the violence

I disagree with almost everything you say here, but this does not mean that you are wrong! Also, I suspect this is now off topic to the purists.>I want more realism in the flying experienceDon't ask for something unless you are sure you want it.>Flying an a/c in real life involves>much more that taking off and landing Yes, but that's basically it.>there is a strong>chance that you risk your life whenever you leave the ground>in real life and also you may lose your licence if you do>something incorrect.Statistically a small chance of losing one's life if you have a licence and stick within its privileges.In the real world, simulators enable one to practice without fear of bad things happening if one makes a mistake. The object is defeated if the simulator 'bans' one for making a mistake in the course of practice. To my mind, the latter goes for gaming or home simulators too.I would not want my gaming experience to treat me as an airline pilot on a simulator check ride all the time. >So for me, I would dearly love to see a full comprehensive set>of lessons - far more advanced and involved than those we are>used to in the Sim with a proper career path mapped out(none>of this learning to fly a 172 and then transitioning direct to>a 747), The real world limits are mainly attributable to economics and legalism. Why import them into the gaming arena where the same rationales do not exist? And suppose one never became good enough within the game's parameters to 'fly' the 'pretend' 747, Concorde, etc? Not much fun being nearly as limited in the pretend world as one is in the real world.There are products on the market with career paths if that is your interest (Airliner Simulator 2 springs to mind).>involving not only the ability to fly but information>needed to pass exams in real life. There is already a fair proportion of the material in FS 2004.>right>now, we really treat Fsim as a joke Speak for yourself!>the a/c are far too easy to fly Actually, many are more difficult to fly than in the real world>and we fly them anywhere in the world that we care>to. That's the general idea with flying. And one area in which the simulator is better than the real thing.>Somebody mentioned that they would like to see ATC fixed>up - so that he doesn't have a 747 overtaking him on approach.Maybe a settings problem more than anything. In some ways, not unreasonable for the 747 to have priority and be travelling faster on approach than a C 172. In my part of the real world, the light aircraft give way to the jets.Many features of the ATC are very good - and there is a 'differences' guide.>In my part of the world , I doubt very much that you would>ever get anywhere near an airport that lands 747s as the>landing costs for my C172 at that airport would be>prohibitive. True up to a point in my part of the real world, but not an invariable truth. >So FS2004 is far removed for true reality.Even if true, just as well for many of us. :-) But the idea is overstated and overrated. If you look at where FS 2004 is generally sold, it is probably the closest thing to reality in the shop. Plus it is also sold in pilot shops alongside the real world paraphernalia. So it looks like there is something in it for everyone and is capable of a variety of uses.Best wishes in your quest for realism. I hope that you do actually become a real life flyer one day if at all possible. If not, don't pay too much credence to those whose apparent main aim in life is decrying desktop simulators - many are actually rather good, and it looks like they are going to get better. :D Michael

I am going to try to be reasonable here.... (gritting teeth)>Ban books??? When did I say that? I just have a problem>getting enjoyment out of violence. At least a book is>informativeCombat sims essentially serve as an interactive way to learn about the machinery and systems of aircraft, naval vessels, etc -- and the challenges of operating within a hostile environment. They are no less informative (and arguably, more so with a well-done sim) than a book on the subject.>>War might be vary important, but that still gives me the right>to dispise it and refuse to get enjoyment out of the>suffering. What do you have a degree in PC gaming?Can we keep this reasonable please? I'm just an old guy who's been playing PC games (and flight and combat sims) since the early days. I'm also not in favor of generalizing and labeling different types of gamers.You might despise war, but you can't despise many of the warriors ..... The soldiers and pilots and others who liberated Europe in World War II, for example. I'm not going to get into a political discussion here, but you sound like someone who's saying "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" while putting his fingers in his ear.It isn't>that complicated to understand, and any gamer past the age of>20 knows the history well enough. The point is, you play a>game filled with violence, you are getting mindless enjoyment>out of the violenceYou are free to ignore combat sims. But generalizing those who enjoy the challenges and historical insight gained from combat sims as getting "mindless enjoyment" is just ridiculous. I'm of course opposed to war in most of its forms, but I am also interested in the technologies of warfare and amazed by the challenges faced and the sacrifices made by the warriors.

Well put Jimmy. I should remind some of my post below. Please be sensitive to those who use the combat sim genre. It is very unfair to generalize all of them as seeking violence. Many are seeking closure, others are seeking to learn about battle so that, in the future, perhaps there will be fewer. Still others are trying to get a sense of what their grandfathers and fathers might have felt defending the skies under which we offer our opinions here. I don't enjoy combat sims, nor do I enjoy reading, seeing or hearing about combat. But my father, who enjoyed the latter three, certainly wasn't a mindless killer. He was a man trying to make sense out of the time in which he lived. And I have read and watched and heard of his time, and have the peace afterwards to go to sleep knowing my petty gripes about fps aren't as serious as the problems his generation faced when the world was aflame in war.-John