What about guns and bombs?

[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 ;)

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,At Flightsim.com this topic has gone on for a very long time. The response: no, no, no and more no.Hope this helps,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg

---

http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg

[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

[Guest]

no no no no no :)

[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.

[1mikel151 71]

>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

[Deaf Pilot 1]

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.

[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

[Guest]

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

[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

[Tabs 2,790]

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...

[Manny 1,293]

Yeah...MOA's and Iraq.:)

[DadJokeCinema 145]

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.

[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....!

[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.