Todays New Release - F16 Collection on Just Flight

[Matchstick 1,926]

Looking for the TF-104 update on just flight I spotted they have a new release of in the form of a pack of F-16 versions from SC Designs (along the line of the F-15s from DC Designs)

Definitely not DCS level of modelling but I'm not personally going to condem it without flying it (but I'm not going to buy it either 😉 )

 

https://www.justflight.com/product/sc-designs-f16-c-d-i-fighting-falcon

[Car147 2,305]

I like the look of the exterior, but having used the F16 in DCS i just cannot use a cockpit looking like that. I know there's a vast difference in price, but also complexity costs.

[Nyxx 6,994]

The F-16 is my Fav Air to Air Fighter and for looks its also my #1 Flighter of them all.

But that VC like Car147 is a big no no. Also I find all Fxx for MSFS just toys from what ive seen. Strangle the new F-18 seems the best!

This profile is just stunning ( Sorry for the pictures coming from DCS)🙄

One of the big things with the Land based F-16 is learning to land it the right way. Not that people within MSFS with bother about. But IRL there are very good reasons to land it right. And it is a skill to. learn.

The people that know will know that once you land like this you keep it at this AOA untill 100KTS. Becasue the Brakes are that bad. Also the landing gear is so close together it needs a good landing.

I would be suprized if any of that is modeled  with the MSFS version. Not that I think 90% of users will care.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nyxx

[PlumCrazy 236]

I was looking forward to the release of this F-16 in MSFS, as the Viper is by far my favorite aircraft to fly in DCS.  But as others have mentioned in the thread, the VC in this SC Designs package is a huge disappointment.  I may still be tempted to purchase it eventually since there are no other options for an F-16 in MSFS, but I will await reviews on the flight model before making that decision.

[SquadronLeader 63]

I have taken the plunge and purchased the Just Flight F-16. I do not own DCS so unable to compare the look and feel as others have. That said, it looks good to me both internally and externally, my biggest concern was the sensitivity of the joystick. I have a Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog and the settings are way to sensitive in the F-16 - yet work perfectly in Just Flights Hawk - so hopefully this will be addressed soon.

[Nyxx 6,994]

1 hour ago, SquadronLeader said:

I have taken the plunge and purchased the Just Flight F-16. I do not own DCS so unable to compare the look and feel as others have. That said, it looks good to me both internally and externally, my biggest concern was the sensitivity of the joystick. I have a Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog and the settings are way to sensitive in the F-16 - yet work perfectly in Just Flights Hawk - so hopefully this will be addressed soon.

Just make a new profile for the F-16 and add more curve. To your liking.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nyxx

[DC1973 522]

2 hours ago, Nyxx said:

One of the big things with the Land based F-16 is learning to land it the right way. Not that people within MSFS with bother about. But IRL there are very good reasons to land it right. And it is a skill to. learn.

The people that know will know that once you land like this you keep it at this AOA untill 100KTS. Becasue the Brakes are that bad. Also the landing gear is so close together it needs a good landing.

I would be suprized if any of that is modeled  with the MSFS version. Not that I think 90% of users will care.

 

Actually, all of it is modeled, but as you don't ever do anything but pass judgement on airplanes you don't even own, you would not know. And as you have been told before by moderators here on numerous occasions, posting DCS images / making comparisons on MSFS forums is against the forum rules. They're to be posted in the DCS forum threads. I can't imagine why something so simple is so hard for you to remember / understand. In addition, you repeatedly refer to the MSFS jets as "toys" here. They're anything but, with flight models matched closely to real-world NATOPS data in all cases of my airplanes, with advice given also by former / serving pilots of those airplanes. MSFS aerodynamic limitations aside, they're actually quite accurate and will only improve over time along with the simulator itself. 

As for the cockpit, I actually agree with the comments made here and elsewhere. In brief, the methods used for DC Designs / SC Designs are from those when I was building airplanes for FSX and Prepar3D - most developers chose detail over performance, so I instead went for performance over detail so that users could have carefree frame rates even in heavy weather / multiplayer etc. Now, with the MSFS performance enhancements and their example of the FA-18E, it's obvious that those concerns are a thing of the past. As a result, all DC and SC aircraft are getting big visuals upgrades next year - systems are fine for the target market, but I'm keen to match the Asobo Super Hornet and some other developers' work with better modeling and texturing throughout, to produce more rounded products that keep up to date with what's possible.

Edited December 8, 2021 by DC1973
Speeling :)

[DC1973 522]

2 hours ago, Car147 said:

I like the look of the exterior, but having used the F16 in DCS i just cannot use a cockpit looking like that. I know there's a vast difference in price, but also complexity costs.

I understand this. It's hard to find the right balance between cost and detail, and at the moment the vast majority of the market really seem to prefer lower cost packages with some variety, hence three F-16s for $30 ( as opposed to one airplane for $30 ).

Next year I'm producing single airplane packages to see how they do, with higher detail. How they perform sales-wise will dictate where I go from there, basically - single airplanes with absolute high detail, or just carry on as I am at the moment.

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

10 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

Actually, all of it is modeled, but as you don't ever do anything but pass judgement on airplanes you don't even own, you would not know. And as you have been told before by moderators here on numerous occasions, posting DCS images / making comparisons on MSFS forums is against the forum rules. They're to be posted in the DCS forum threads. I can't imagine why something so simple is so hard for you to remember / understand. In addition, you repeatedly refer to the MSFS jets as "toys" here. They're anything but, with flight models matched closely to real-world NATOPS data in all cases of my airplanes, with advice given also by former / serving pilots of those airplanes. MSFS aerodynamic limitations aside, they're actually quite accurate and will only improve over time along with the simulator itself. 

As for the cockpit, I actually agree with the comments made here and elsewhere. In brief, the methods used for DC Designs / SC Designs are from those when I was building airplanes for FSX and Prepar3D - most developers chose detail over performance, so I instead went for performance over detail so that users could have carefree frame rates even in heavy weather / multiplayer etc. Now, with the MSFS performance enhancements and their example of the FA-18E, it's obvious that those concerns are a thing of the past. As a result, all DC and SC aircraft are getting big visuals upgrades next year - systems are fine for the target market, but I'm keen to match the Asobo Super Hornet and some other developers' work with better modeling and texturing throughout, to produce more rounded products that keep up to date with what's possible.

this is AVSIM, don't let the haters gets to you. Just keep doing what you are doing. I would love to see more avionics and switches model in the VC. If you can do that over the coming months, It would make it a better product.

[Nyxx 6,994]

33 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

Actually, all of it is modeled, but as you don't ever do anything but pass judgement on airplanes you don't even own, you would not know. And as you have been told before by moderators here on numerous occasions, posting DCS images / making comparisons on MSFS forums is against the forum rules. They're to be posted in the DCS forum threads. I can't imagine why something so simple is so hard for you to remember / understand. In addition, you repeatedly refer to the MSFS jets as "toys" here. They're anything but, with flight models matched closely to real-world NATOPS data in all cases of my airplanes, with advice given also by former / serving pilots of those airplanes. MSFS aerodynamic limitations aside, they're actually quite accurate and will only improve over time along with the simulator itself. 

You seems to forget that the mods said if was fine to make comparisons as long as its civil. 🙂

I own the Hawk trainer from JF and I think its a great. Many reviews even from IRL Hawk trainer pilots. As for what i said i will stand buy it, as i have watch many youtube reviews to draw my opinion thankyou. And with that I will leave you to it. 

You say

"Next year I'm producing single airplane packages to see how they do, with higher detail. How they perform sales-wise will dictate where I go from there, basically - single airplanes with absolute high detail, or just carry on as I am at the moment."

That looks promising I hope that goes well. 

All the best.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nyxx

[Car147 2,305]

13 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

this is AVSIM, don't let the haters gets to you. Just keep doing what you are doing. I would love to see more avionics and switches model in the VC. If you can do that over the coming months, It would make it a better product.

I was not hating, i was merely pointing out i would prefer to pay more for a more detailed aircraft and systems.. sorry if it upset you.

[Nyxx 6,994]

20 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

this is AVSIM, don't let the haters gets to you. Just keep doing what you are doing. I would love to see more avionics and switches model in the VC. If you can do that over the coming months, It would make it a better product.

No hate, where was hate said, can we not have an opinion unless its a great, wonderfull, everything is rosey!

Each to there own,as long as someone enjoys something thats all that matters. We all enjoy diffrent things, nothing wrong in that is they?

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nyxx

[DC1973 522]

17 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

You seems to forget that the mods said if was fine to make comparisons as long as its civil. 🙂

 

Civil, I can do - calling other developer's aircraft "toys" when you don't own them is not really civil though, is it. I am not sure if you're aware but I am actually a PPL-trained pilot, so I do know a reasonable bit about real life aviation and what's required. However, I build for the most commercial market, not my ego, hence the desire to create aircraft that are accessible but not "arcade", despite some just assuming that they are.

I actually talked to Just Flight about all of this recently. I made some comparison pictures of the SC F-16 with the DCS F-16, interior and exterior, same lighting and camera angle, and asked them for some feedback on what they felt was different visually. The answer was that the exterior was indistinguishable from DCS for the most part, while the interior modeling was not that different at all either ( barring the fine detail in the DCS version ). The big difference seems to actually be the way I'm using PBR - the colours are not as rich or deep as other developers are achieving, and appear washed out when the light hits them. Cockpit detail is easy to add in terms of modeling work, and is actually my favourite part of the job.

Long story short, I'm on a learning curve with PBR to upgrade textures, and have some modeling to do to improve existing components and add more of what's missing. But functionally and aerodynamically, the F-16s and my DC Designs jets are actually bang on the money for realism ( within the confines of MSFS ) and have done incredibly well this year. 

 

 

[Nyxx 6,994]

6 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

I actually talked to Just Flight about all of this recently. I made some comparison pictures of the SC F-16 with the DCS F-16, interior and exterior, same lighting and camera angle, and asked them for some feedback on what they felt was different visually. The answer was that the exterior was indistinguishable from DCS for the most part, while the interior modeling was not that different at all either ( barring the fine detail in the DCS version ). The big difference seems to actually be the way I'm using PBR - the colours are not as rich or deep as other developers are achieving, and appear washed out when the light hits them. Cockpit detail is easy to add in terms of modeling work, and is actually my favourite part of the job.

Would it be OK to use screnshots of the SC F-16 and show here "exterior was indistinguishable from DCS" and "interior modeling was not that different at all either." Or would that upset you, as you now compair the two. Happy to show the huge diffrence.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nyxx

[DC1973 522]

I'm afraid you're missing the point, and deliberately, as you full well know that the SC Designs are $30 for three variants, while the DCS version is $79.99 for one. There are of course differences, the point is that with increased model detail and better texturing methods, my airplanes would stand up well to the visuals of the DCS version while costing less than half and having more variety of types. 

This sounds more like just another "DCS and everything about it is so much better and we'll ignore anything else" argument so I'll leave it there.