Todays New Release - F16 Collection on Just Flight

[bobcat999 8,505]

19 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

This is not a criticism in any way, but just a curious question... if you were wanting to fly a military aircraft of any type, why not fly it in DCS and have a choice of some of the best hi-fidelity aircraft on the market?

I just look at it as military training missions rather than anything with weapons free.  Try flying the Mach Loop in DCS!  

[DC1973 522]

23 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

This is not a criticism in any way, but just a curious question... if you were wanting to fly a military aircraft of any type, why not fly it in DCS and have a choice of some of the best hi-fidelity aircraft on the market?

Simply because most folks just don't want DCS due to its limited nature - military only, and confined to arenas, in highly complex aircraft. If they did, DCS would be swamped with users - but it has always been the case that the vast majority of simmers used FSX, Prepar3D, X-Plane and now MSFS. 

DCS primarily simulates combat, whereas MSFS primarily simulates aviation. In MSFS, any airplane can be created, and flown anywhere. Costs of airplanes are typically lower in MSFS, which appeals to most users, especially these days. The list is endless really. DCS is very specialist, while MSFS caters to the larger audience.

[captain420 3,099]

The F-16 is my favorite military jet to fly and I own this awesome and beautiful bird in DCS. So I am spoiled by the meticulously detailed interior cockpit and exterior. I am happy to see that you guys are working on one for MSFS. Since I prefer to fly the F16 in MSFS instead of DCS. The MSFS environment is so much better overall. I would love to be able to fly my DCS F16 inside of MSFS if possible. The DCS environment just isn't on the same level as MSFS, which is why I will be waiting for SC's version of the F16 to improve before I make the purchase. As with a few others in here regarding selling one model vs multiple. I also am interested in purchasing 1 single model and save your time and efforts on the graphics and details work on making it look the best that you can. I don't care for different variants when there's not much noticeable difference between them. Choose the model that would make sense for your customer. The model that most would choose and stick with that. Good luck and hope to see what you can do with this awesome plane!  

Right now the visuals of the plane seem out of place in MSFS. And I'm aware that you guys know this too and I am happy that you will be focusing on bringing it up to par to match or exceed the DCS version in future updates. Keep up the great work! I'm anxiously looking forward to what you guys can do to make her look her best!

[captain420 3,099]

39 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

This is not a criticism in any way, but just a curious question... if you were wanting to fly a military aircraft of any type, why not fly it in DCS and have a choice of some of the best hi-fidelity aircraft on the market?

Simply because the world in DCS is quite limited and not as aesthetically pleasing as the world in MSFS. I can't fly the F16 anywhere I want to in DCS. The scenery is absolutely beautiful in MSFS and I have the entire world to fly. Can't do that in DCS.

[sd_flyer 6,087]

Just talked to real navy hornet driver and YouTuber who said “everyone want me to talk about how realistic DCS and compare! But in reality it nothing close to real F-18” So folks take sims with grain of salt. All this hype about game marketed as authentic simulator is just way to sell stuff! Take it ease and remember at least MSFS had good visuals ! Lol

[kdfw__ 543]

45 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Just talked to real navy hornet driver and YouTuber who said “everyone want me to talk about how realistic DCS and compare! But in reality it nothing close to real F-18” So folks take sims with grain of salt. All this hype about game marketed as authentic simulator is just way to sell stuff! Take it ease and remember at least MSFS had good visuals ! Lol

for each f-whatver driver that says 'it's nothing close to the real f-whatever'  there are f-whatever driver that says 'it's a good approximation of the f-whatever on a desktop sim.'  of course it's nothing like the real aircraft pulling g's.  but avionics modeling is where dcs shines.

although dcs' sandbox is limited compared to the world modeled in mfs, recent geographic offerings are pretty well detailed with excellent lighting.  and the new clouds that came with 2.7?  quite excellent.

as for the dcs f16, it goes on sale on a regular basis so it's not really $80, more like $56.  is the dcs f16 1.6x better than the f16 being discussed here?  would like to see more reviews.

[Rocky_53 1,594]

2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

I just look at it as military training missions rather than anything with weapons free.  Try flying the Mach Loop in DCS!  

👍

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

Simply because most folks just don't want DCS due to its limited nature - military only, and confined to arenas, in highly complex aircraft. If they did, DCS would be swamped with users - but it has always been the case that the vast majority of simmers used FSX, Prepar3D, X-Plane and now MSFS. 

DCS primarily simulates combat, whereas MSFS primarily simulates aviation. In MSFS, any airplane can be created, and flown anywhere. Costs of airplanes are typically lower in MSFS, which appeals to most users, especially these days. The list is endless really. DCS is very specialist, while MSFS caters to the larger audience.

👍

1 hour ago, captain420 said:

Simply because the world in DCS is quite limited and not as aesthetically pleasing as the world in MSFS. I can't fly the F16 anywhere I want to in DCS. The scenery is absolutely beautiful in MSFS and I have the entire world to fly. Can't do that in DCS.

👍

[sd_flyer 6,087]

1 hour ago, kdfw__ said:

for each f-whatver driver that says 'it's nothing close to the real f-whatever'  there are f-whatever driver that says 'it's a good approximation of the f-whatever on a desktop sim.'  of course it's nothing like the real aircraft pulling g's.  but avionics modeling is where dcs shines.

although dcs' sandbox is limited compared to the world modeled in mfs, recent geographic offerings are pretty well detailed with excellent lighting.  and the new clouds that came with 2.7?  quite excellent.

as for the dcs f16, it goes on sale on a regular basis so it's not really $80, more like $56.  is the dcs f16 1.6x better than the f16 being discussed here?  would like to see more reviews.

Unlike civilian aircraft, avionics in DCS is artistic interpretation (except very old military hardware). No wonder DCS employee was arrested in USS for trying to get actual manual from combat from eBay!

You should understand the people who serve and flight do not comment on G forces lol it’s sort of obvious for a lot of people !

[jcomm 6,000]

DCS World / Earth are flat too - a simplification which has it's consequences in terms of navigation and scenery, but also in the physics of igh speed projectiles and even aircraft moving fast...

Flight dynamics, that's another subject....

BTW, I actually prefer the "flight" in IL-2 - which is also flat-world ...

Edited December 13, 2021 by jcomm

[Ferg 35]

 

MSFS provides an environment for almost every conceiveable type of aircraft each with their attendant customer following and military jets are an integral part of world aviation.

Like others here I have no interest in the shoot 'em / bomb 'em aspect of these types of aircraft although I fully accept others have a different taste and they have a great place to go for that. 

However, the vast majority of the time tactical combat jets around the world operate without live weapons. At best they will carry inert weapons. 

This aspect of military fast jet operations fits perfecty with the MSFS 'no weapons' ethos. 

Asobo have provided us with an unrivalled simulated world to fly in and our devs and community are providing a vast array of well detailed airports - including now some of the key military bases.

With scenery locations like Nellis soon to be released I believe demand for top quality F-16/F-15/F-22 models will rapidly increase with the Indiafoxtecho F-35 close to release.

Do we know if any other Dev's have an F-16 in their work flow? I havent seen one myself.

If not, I think SC Designs has great commercial basis and window of opportunity to do a really comprehensive upgrade of the F-16 in the New Year picking up a lot of the comments and suggestions in this thread.

From a practical standpoint perhaps, as already intimated by SC, better if one envisaged a solo "delux super version" just of the F-16C.

I think also that some of the brilliant repainters in our community are more likely to devote their time and effort if the underlying aircraft product is up to snuff from a quality perspective. We are seeing that already with the SSW TF-104G where some of the repaints are taking that jet to another level. 

Exciting times!!

 

 

[Sylle 49]

Big F-16 fan here so I was really looking forward to the release of this addon...

I had a look at the SC Designs manual for the F-16 (thank you for making that available) and based on the info it contains I decided NOT to purchase at this time unfortunately. 😞

I can understand that the developer wants to cater for a larger crowd and avoid the high-fidelity simulation of systems.
The thing that turned me off from purchasing though is realizing that the limited amount of systems SC Designs decided to simulate are done with a high degree of 'artistic liberty'. 

Some examples:
- HUD symbology and placement of information not correct (waterline mark W?, HDG tape location, actual G, max G, navigation cue to next waypoint, ...)
Lots of other info present that is not found on the real F-16 HUD ('no V speeds'?, MDA?, airport elev reference marks in altitude tape?)
The HUD is probably the single most important in a modern western fighter as it's the instrument you're looking at ALL the time.

- DED replaced by a mini-FMC (active database dates?, LEAP?, perf factor %?, CLB red alt?, TO shift?, FLEX to temp?, DES cabin rate?, etc)
All inexistent on the real F-16 and none of those things will increase or 'preserve the amount of fun' I have flying this in the sim. (quotes refer to a sentence in the manual)

- ICP top row of buttons mislabeled compared to real F-16 but the actual displayed label does not even reflect what it does in the sim?
MENU = DCT TO
SHF = INIT PAGE
MARK = ECON

Lot's of real life ICP functions could have been implemented without raising the complexity for the users.
Eg. COM1/2 for radios, IFF for transponder?, T-ILS for tuning TACANs (simulated now in MSFS) / VORs / ILS, A-LOW, STPT, TIME, ...
I even dare to say it would have been more user friendly than what we have now.

- OSB's around the MFD have no label next to them and are bound to a lot of autopilot functions or HSD display settings. Good luck remembering all of those...

- Lower amount of polygons for the interior cockpit model
I understand the developer did this for performance reasons and already wants to improve this in the future.
That being said, this does not explain why some of the proportions (especially in depth are incorrectly modeled) 

 

So I don't completely get it... 
Limit the amount of simulated systems and their system depth - sure
but why make up some completely fantasy systems that seem to come straight out of a business jet iso a fighter?


I believe the default F/A-18E strikes a much better balance for a fun, non-hardcore fighter aircraft while staying more truthful to its real life counterpart than this F-16 package.
Even the default Hornet in AeroflyFS (considered by many as the ideal VR, high FPS, low complexity aircraft / just fly-around sim) has more system accuracy than the SC Designs Falcons... 😞 Actually it is pretty close to the level of the MSFS Super Hornet.

 

I will keep an eye on future developments hoping it will tackle some of the issues I have with it today.

Regards,
Sylvain

Edited December 13, 2021 by Sylle

[DC1973 522]

8 minutes ago, Sylle said:

 

I can understand that the developer wants to cater for a larger crowd and avoid the high-fidelity simulation of systems.
The thing that turned me off from purchasing though is realizing that the limited amount of systems SC Designs decided to simulate are done with a high degree of 'artistic liberty'. 
 

You did the right thing - checked it out, understood it wasn't for you, and moved on. Artistic liberty is often just what we have to do right now unfortunately, at least until we get a better handle on HTML coding and how to make MSFS do what we want when it comes to displays.

Most of what you write just cannot be done in MSFS right now, and still keep the F-16 package at a reasonable price while avoiding Sim Updates breaking things. Those things that can be done, such as visual and modeling upgrades, will be present next year. 

[Sylle 49]

15 minutes ago, DC1973 said:

... Artistic liberty is often just what we have to do right now unfortunately, at least until we get a better handle on HTML coding and how to make MSFS do what we want when it comes to displays.

Most of what you write just cannot be done in MSFS right now, and still keep the F-16 package at a reasonable price while avoiding Sim Updates breaking things...

Understood Dean!

It's a shame but let's hope for more possibilities in the future with the HTML coding.

Does the default Hornet instruments open up more possibilities already or is the inner coding of it's displays and HUD still a 'black box' for developers like you?

Regards,
S.

[DC1973 522]

1 minute ago, Sylle said:

Does the default Hornet instruments open up more possibilities already or is the inner coding of it's displays and HUD still a 'black box' for developers like you?

Regards,
S.

They have given us some things to play with, but as ever, much of what is there we cannot yet manipulate. It would be easy for me to place the FA-18E displays into the F-16s, for instance, but they would still not be accurate to the F-16. My code guy is currently looking into all of this in the hopes we can use the Hornet as a basis for better displays. I think he did well to get a FLIR-type display working in the F-16s really.

HUDs are always very complex, and take a long time to produce, but I have no doubt we will get there eventually.

There are some other developers producing extremely realistic displays for their aircraft, but they're still on XML coding, which Asobo have said will not be supported going forwards, so I feel it's best to simply do what we can now with what we know will work in the future, and then improve it over time as we learn more.

[PlumCrazy 228]

18 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Just talked to real navy hornet driver and YouTuber who said “everyone want me to talk about how realistic DCS and compare! But in reality it nothing close to real F-18” So folks take sims with grain of salt. All this hype about game marketed as authentic simulator is just way to sell stuff! Take it ease and remember at least MSFS had good visuals ! Lol

I just recently stumbled upon a video where the Canadian Snowbirds demonstration team uses DCS, flying VR using Reverb G2s to practice their show routine when weather and other factor prohibit real-world flying.  The team uses a proprietary version of their CT-114 Tutor aircraft in DCS.  I can only hope the aircraft becomes available to the public at some point. 

I know this does not relate directly to the DCS Hornet, but it does relate to the ability for sims (in his case DCS) to provide a relatively accurate simulation of the flight dynamics of real-world aircraft.  If it's good enough for a team like the Snowbirds to use for actual practice, I think it's more than good enough for my use at home 😉