Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest GA Flyer

What about guns and bombs?

Recommended Posts

Guest Rayed

Since we won't be seeing new CFS anytime soon what about guns and bombs in FS (I mean military planes which actually can perform their tasks)?Personally I'd like to see it, maybe not in base package but as an expansion?I've read that the game is going to be more mission structured this time, being able to fly combat missions from time to time would be lots of fun.P.S. Please do not flame me, as I won't respond nor read the flames ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GA Flyer

No flames here. I feel your post was well said. I have read threads about this in the past and feel its a hot topic for some. Personally I feel out of the box its shouldn't be available but a change to the config file (like what we can do to get crash effects) would allow for guns and bombs ***but*** only within MOAs. I personally feel this would be a fair trade off and realistic approach since the FS franchise is civilian where CFS was a war time sim.Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek D

I don't know why people would be opposed to this honestly :-hmmm. Other than possibly distracting the dev team from concentrating on civilian features, it wouldn't interfere with anyone's game play since you could easily opt to not fly any fighter planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I don't know why people would be opposed to this honestly>:-hmmm. Other than possibly distracting the dev team from>concentrating on civilian features, it wouldn't interfere with>anyone's game play since you could easily opt to not fly any>fighter planes.Exactly!!Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to guns and bombs... yes to potential physics for things similar to that. Some things that come to mind are fire-fighting missions with water bombing, or watermelon challenges (trying to "bomb" a spot with a watermelon), and things of that sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GA Flyer

Derek,I think most who say no have good reason and see abuse of the sim. Mainly shooting up or bombing things that shouldn't be. Thats why I feel MOA's as a place where only guns and bombs work would be a trade off. Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Water bombing to put out fires sounds ok for a mission. Please no other bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest christian

>Other than possibly distracting the dev team from>concentrating on civilian features, That's reason enough. Would you really be satisfied with a half-hearted attempt to incorporate guns and bombs? There is a good reason MS had 2 different franchises and a mix and match product won't benefit everyone. Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think it'd be cool - no one would be forcing you to use them, and it could potentially add a whole new dimension - imagine for instance a VATSIM Military server where people could dogfight etc... The market for high-end military addons would make a ton more sense if you could actually do something with the aircraft other than just fly them around too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that a massively multiplayer, persistant world with aerial combat would be awesome. Novalogic had a thing like that back in the day for a few of their sims, and that's mostly the reason I played Warbirds and WWIIOnline.However, besides the fact that this is designed out of the box as a civilian flight simulator, and of course, all of the time not only to develop and test these high performance planes, but then also create the individual weapon systems and the physics to go with them, and then you have the issues of latency and prediction that has to work seamlessly with any online flight sim...well, about now, I'm beginning to see why these are always done as separate games.Then we would face the issue of what time period do you put in there? Early flight? WWII? Jet era? Ultra modern? Because there will be guys like me who will want to fly an Avro Lancaster on this VATSIM Milsim server you are suggesting, and I don't want to take an AMRAAM to engine #2 from a F-22 that's 12km away. It's not really practical to mix those time periods in any sort of competitive scenario. Even the games that are supposed to be balanced for the same time range get ripped apart one way or another for some plane being uber and another being nerfed. I think the devs get enough grief as it is just for not having Airbuses shipped with the core package.Then you look at the laundry list of things they "hope" they can fix this time around. Sure, I'm on ACES's side here, I think the screens look beautiful and I am optimistic that it will be fantastic, but there is a good deal of doubt in regards to improved weather and ATC, if this new multiplayer function will be any good, frame rate improvements, etc, etc. I'm a huge milsim guy, and I would much rather have them concentrate on making what they have better, and let the guys making the combat sims work on building combat sims. Between LO:MAC, IL-2, Pacific Fighters, and Falcon 4.0, I think there's a pretty good selection of places where you can blow stuff up. I'd rather pay for two games than pay for one that didn't do either part right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nels

I bet the person posted doesn't reply for a while....this topic seems to get randomly dropped into to all the best known flight sim forums just to see peoples (identical) reactions. Yawn.I mean saying they won't reply to flames and then putting a smiley next to it, c'mon....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andre_Hedegaard

In my opinion, I think its viable to try to pose a question to the FS-team if at any time, they had considered to add military aspects to FS and if so, then for what reasons were they dropped?I think answers to these 2 questions might shed some light on the tasks involved to create a merger between CFS & FS.Also the ethical answers would appeal to my curiosity.As for my own personal taste, in the years in which I've used FS and *tried* (without force mind you) to encourage others (friends,family et al.) to use FS, I noticed that nearly everyone said either,"Theres nothing to do! You just fly around, how boring." or,"I miss something to shoot at".I think that if the FS-team are trying to recruit new users, then tapping into the military market would be quite a big 'bonus', although I think sales figures from the CFS series might shed more light on the approximate size of this group.Even then, one has to consider the option of;Do the same people that buy other military flight sims, also buy FS at the same time, because if so, then whether FS has 'guns&bombs' wouldn't make a difference to sales.I also don't think that merging CFS with FS, would deter the quality of the product, because they've clearly laid out corporate strategy on quality standards and they wouldn't add something it it weren't on par with the rest of the simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Sidoli

Just to add a different slant on this "Politics and image".We had a long and slightly heated thread regarding aircraft crashes into buildings.After 9/11 certain media outlets where making accusations that MSFS was being used to train terrorists to fly.Just imagine that crash and building damage had been incorporated in MSFS and the media had got hold of the fact that you could get delight from others suffering by re inacting world events.Yes there are combat sims which are stand alone but MSFS is a civilian sim. I have slightly mixed feelings on this one but would guess that MS would be sensitive to any future situation where a media finger could be pointed at the product and concentrate more on the living world aspect of MSFS as well as the more positive aspects of aviation.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I don't know why people would be opposed to this honestly>:-hmmm. Other than possibly distracting the dev team from>concentrating on civilian features, it wouldn't interfere with>anyone's game play since you could easily opt to not fly any>fighter planes.Agree. If the dev team would deem it a reasonable feat for FSX, I would love to see the SDK expanded to enable the 3rd party crew to supply us with that kind of products in the future. Basing air combat sims on this beutiful engine would be awesome but I doubt if it would be possible to see any playable, hard core, air combat sim arrive in the 'FSX generation' of such an 'war API'. Just imagine the performance needed to drive:1. Modelling of numerous missiles flying around2. Modellig of very complex new 'avionics' (radar, tactical, weapons management etc).3. Modelling of a dynamic compaign (not a requirement but scripted wars are extremenly boring)4. Wingmen, package and tactical dispatching AI5. Ground and naval combat vehicles modelling (AI)That, AND the beutiful graphics of FSX. Dream on...:9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Sidoli

I am torn on this one being a realism nut :-)On the one hand fighter aircraft are beautiful pieces of flying sculpture pushing the limits of technological development.They are fighting machines and in a way to strip them of their fighting capability is not developing the sim models to the max possible.On the other hand MSFS is a Civilian and GA sim and probably not the correct platform for war aircraft.I too agree with you that the aircraft cannot be depicted without the mass of subsidiary parts which make a war scenario.In that respect apart from the Political Image aspect of bringing war fighting aircraft into a GA sim it probably better to leave such a specialised simulation to its own specific fighter simulation and not confusing MSFS even more by doing a half hearted job.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andre_Hedegaard

I think that enacting a ban on small arms in the USA wouldn't hurt much, considering this is a greater threat than a flight sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Certainly NOT.There are enough kids already who go around deliberately crashing into others online (and deliberately crashing into buildings and stuff).If they had guns and bombs to blow things up with that would increase tenfold at least as now they would no longer have to pretend firing some weapon but could actually do it.Every night on vatsim would be a slugfest of kiddos trying to blow airliners out of the sky on approach to airports all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to happen...The adding of guns and bombs is one thing, but the re-modeling of every scenery object to show damage is another. It would be hard to justify all that additional work to serve the wants of a minority of flight simmers. Also, there's the realism factor - If we add guns and bombs, then people start asking for different types of bombs, and then the jet guys start saying they need missles. Well, accurately modeling modern missle systems, including the fire control radar and intercept logic is enormously complex. Again, it would require quite a bit of work to get it right, for the benefit of a minority of flight simmers.It's interesting to note that the early versions of FS (maybe version 2 or so) came with a combat mode, that allowed you to fly around and fire guns and drop bombs, but you could only do this in a a special "war zone", and in the general FS world. If you didn't know this, it is probably because it wasn't very popular. When you take into account the excellent combat-related flight sims on the market nowadays, you have to wonder why people would want this from FS. FS has it's niche, let the other sims keep thiers.- Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Machdiamonds

I remember doing air to air combat with FS1 ( against a pixel :+ ) but that was a long time ago.--MPS: There are good combat sims around anyway, no need for guns in FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest grapesh

regarding online co-existence of military and civil planes: first of all, you can always be banned for stupid things like blowing airliners etc. and second, if you have to earn the privilege to fly an ARMORED fighter, you won't like to lose it at once. But this implies a solid account-based ranking system I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GA Flyer

After reading these post and all the others over time I still feel there could be a way to make both parties happy. First off it would be guns and bombs only -no high tech stuff. Shouldnt be too hard to model that "effect". By effect I mean you cant do damage but see the tracers and bombs leaving the plane.These effects would only be available in MOA's which is where actions like this should happen and no where else. If on VATSIM MOAs could be hot and the controller provide NOTAMs for that. If two users want to dog fight they can only do it in a MOA and they couldn't destroy each other since its only an effect.Lastly out of the box would require a change to the config file to enable this effect and MS doesnt need to make the effect only possible for other too.Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rayed

>Certainly NOT.>>There are enough kids already who go around deliberately>crashing into others online (and deliberately crashing into>buildings and stuff).>If they had guns and bombs to blow things up with that would>increase tenfold at least as now they would no longer have to>pretend firing some weapon but could actually do it.>>Every night on vatsim would be a slugfest of kiddos trying to>blow airliners out of the sky on approach to airports all over>the world.Come on this is very linear thinking.I am not a kid, I even have my own kid. My grandpa was fighter pilot and unfortunately he was shot during ww II. My father was airline pilot, and even he liked to shoot stuff on my old spectrum. I couldn't fly military, so I decided to pursue other carrier :)Expansion can be done in a way that it its usage can be prevented on post-nuclear airliners world simulation called VATSIM ;). So no worries, the last few of human race who are still flying won't be doomed :). Anyway last saturday when I was flying somewhere on VATSIM that was like 7 F16 looking for their SHELL16 and all ATC in this area were too busy helping them - I am not joiking this time.I don't think it's good idea to integrate combat in base product, as it would be overkill for both devs and users. Also, only few people would probably ever fly civilian planes anwyway :)Expansion, imo would be good idea.I'd say just give a possibility to show damage, use weapon systems and register damage done in some way. Build some missions on it. Easier said that done, but doable. I'd say make it fictional modern settings. Put a piece into code which requires exact descripion of the plane to be sent to the mp server. Let the server admin decide which planes can log in ont this server. That would allow for any setting.As for sceneries etc.. Recently I was looking at lunar lander addon for FS9. I also have X-Wing which I fly on VATSIM. There is a lot of ocean and deserts in the world, not to mention military zones. People can build their own sceneries, fictional or not.As for all this "civlian not civilian" and politics stuff. Let's not be hypocrits. With games like BF2, Call of Duty, America's Army etc.. having good combat flight game is rather harmless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...