Todays New Release - F16 Collection on Just Flight

[PlumCrazy 236]

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

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.

I appreciate you coming on this forum and explaining your decisions from a developer perspective.  Many developers could learn a thing or three from your communication here and on social media, along with your transparency.  I am one of those that has criticized the VC of your F-16 (admittedly from images and YouTube videos) but I look forward to future updates/improvements as you learn MSFS development techniques.  And I will be purchasing the aircraft, as it is my favorite military jet to fly in that other sim. 😉

I will disagree about choosing to deliver 3 variants of the Viper instead of a single, more "advanced" variant (and I would argue the same with the F-15 package).  I doubt many people purchase these aircraft packages because they are getting "3 aircraft" for the price of one.  I purchased the F-15 because I wanted a fast jet in MSFS, and there were none available at that time.  I will purchase this F-16 because I love the Viper, and this is the only one available in MSFS.  The fact there are a few variants has absolutely no influence on my purchasing decision, since I find little to no difference in the flight model between these variants anyway.  Obviously you know more about the 3rd party aircraft market from a developer's perspective than I do, but I would absolutely prefer a bit more time/energy/effort be put into producing a single, detailed version of these aircraft rather than into additional variants of a more "simplified" aircraft. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by PlumCrazy

[Nyxx 6,994]

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

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.

Am very sorry, with your statment about "exterior was indistinguishable from DCS" and "interior modeling was not that different at all either." 

Am very sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it, you cannot say one second the above then saying, "There are of course differences." its one thing or the other, good and true to life, or cheap and cheerfull. ie you get what you pay for.

I would like to help you becasue the person that told you "exterior was indistinguishable from DCS" and "interior modeling was not that different at all either." you should never use them to give you feed back again. I mean this sincerely. 

After watching youtube on the above release, I would point out the exteror model lacks texturing to the point it looks like imo plastic. I will keep on topic and not use another sims version to compare, but to say this is indistinguishable from the other sim is just wrong.

I would surgest a huge amount more texturing and weather should be done.

Also the VC has some glareing problems.

Does any model have the this look?

The displays are very much MSFS not F-16, very wrong.

Also the F-16 stick does not look like this

Photo of the real one, not one from another sim

Just look at how bad it is the red button on the side? the bottom is round not cut like a 50p, its terrable. "interior modeling was not that different at all either." Really! Where is the pinxy trigger/button? and the lower Expand/FOV button? not there both of them.

So if this is a case you get what you pay for then sure, it is, I get that and am sure it will sell well and hope it does. Its cheap and looks it.  I dont need to own it to see it.

But please dont say statments like.

"exterior was indistinguishable from DCS" and "interior modeling was not that different at all either." 

The JK Hawk cost very little more and is a top draw product. Looks/sound and fight modeling wise.

You say you thinking of doing better aircraft that are not $30, great, I look forward to hopefully a top draw product and if so I will be one of the buyers.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nyxx

[DC1973 522]

15 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Am very sorry, with your statment about "exterior was indistinguishable from DCS" and "interior modeling was not that different at all either." 

Am very sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it, you cannot say one second the above then saying, "There are of course differences." its one thing or the other, good and true to life, or cheap and cheerfull. ie you get what you pay for.

I would like to help you becasue the person that told you "exterior was indistinguishable from DCS" and "interior modeling was not that different at all either." you should never use them to give you feed back again. I mean this sincerely. 

 

The JK Hawk cost very little more and is a top draw product. Looks/sound and fight modeling wise.

You say you thinking of doing better aircraft that are not $30, great, I look forward to hopefully a top draw product and if so I will be one of the buyers.

 

 

Nyxx, you're just not listening. You're cherry picking what fits your point of view with no knowledge of the actual product, something you've done repeatedly here. The whole point of my post about sharing my conversation with Just Flight was not to discredit a DCS airplane, but to highlight what I was doing to find out what others thought about what I should do best to improve the product. You can keep repeating a mantra of otherwise, but it doesn't get any more convincing. 

Those little buttons on the DED of course don't exist on the real airplane, they're there at customer's requests for a more complex autopilot than the real airplane! The DED contains information relevant to that process. But you wouldn't know that, because you're not the customer. The stick, the cockpit, the exterior textures, these are all things that I've been saying I want to improve - they're never going to be $79.99 level because if they were, I'd have to charge that much. But you keep ignoring that, and other factors I've mentioned.

I'd like to end this with a message that was just shared on the Just Flight Facebook page from a user:

"The cockpit in the F-16 is outstanding!!!"

This is something that is said about my airplanes by the majority of users who actually own them. Not all, but most. While I would like to make those cockpits better, I think that most of what you're suggesting is "awful" is actually far from it.

[DC1973 522]

38 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

I appreciate you coming on this forum and explaining your decisions from a developer perspective.  Many developers could learn a thing or three from your communication here and on social media, along with your transparency.  I am one of those that has criticized the VC of your F-16 (admittedly from images and YouTube videos) but I look forward to future updates/improvements as you learn MSFS development techniques.  And I will be purchasing the aircraft, as it is my favorite military jet to fly in that other sim. 😉

 

Thanks! I do hope that you enjoy it!

I am hoping that a move to single aircraft packages, which seems to be favoured by most other developers, will let me focus more on detail and produce better quality products, at least from a modeling and texturing perspective. If it works, it will probably become the norm for me, as multi-packs are literally two, three or four times the work, and equally time-consuming to update.

[Puddin 70]

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

Nyxx, you're just not listening. You're cherry picking what fits your point of view with no knowledge of the actual product, something you've done repeatedly here. The whole point of my post about sharing my conversation with Just Flight was not to discredit a DCS airplane, but to highlight what I was doing to find out what others thought about what I should do best to improve the product. You can keep repeating a mantra of otherwise, but it doesn't get any more convincing. 

Those little buttons on the DED of course don't exist on the real airplane, they're there at customer's requests for a more complex autopilot than the real airplane! The DED contains information relevant to that process. But you wouldn't know that, because you're not the customer. The stick, the cockpit, the exterior textures, these are all things that I've been saying I want to improve - they're never going to be $79.99 level because if they were, I'd have to charge that much. But you keep ignoring that, and other factors I've mentioned.

I'd like to end this with a message that was just shared on the Just Flight Facebook page from a user:

"The cockpit in the F-16 is outstanding!!!"

This is something that is said about my airplanes by the majority of users who actually own them. Not all, but most. While I would like to make those cockpits better, I think that most of what you're suggesting is "awful" is actually far from it.

De ja vu time , I remember jumping on board to defend your F14, but @Nyxx does have a point, but maybe expressed it wrongly by comparing it to the DCS variant.

My take on this is that some developers have pushed boundaries more to the "purist" simmer, particularly in the immersive cockpit environment , others are on a more mainstream path.

After buying a good selection of aircraft  since the release of FS2020  I have through experience found developers who fit what I am now looking for.  

All JF Arrows and Hawk, Milviz PC6 , AH Spit 1 and the new kid H145 must have a mention (dust offs are awesome), add that bit of extra realism into/from  the cockpit rather than the Asobo Carenado nice n shiny lineage. There is no doubt your aircraft will sell well F14/15/16 are hot ships in anyone's hanger , different markets for different people.

And again just like the F14, £25 for that F16, it isn't a lot of brass for what you get.

[Nyxx 6,994]

1 hour ago, DC1973 said:

Nyxx, you're just not listening. You're cherry picking what fits your point of view with no knowledge of the actual product, something you've done repeatedly here. The whole point of my post about sharing my conversation with Just Flight was not to discredit a DCS airplane, but to highlight what I was doing to find out what others thought about what I should do best to improve the product. You can keep repeating a mantra of otherwise, but it doesn't get any more convincing. 

Those little buttons on the DED of course don't exist on the real airplane, they're there at customer's requests for a more complex autopilot than the real airplane! The DED contains information relevant to that process. But you wouldn't know that, because you're not the customer. The stick, the cockpit, the exterior textures, these are all things that I've been saying I want to improve - they're never going to be $79.99 level because if they were, I'd have to charge that much. But you keep ignoring that, and other factors I've mentioned.

I'd like to end this with a message that was just shared on the Just Flight Facebook page from a user:

"The cockpit in the F-16 is outstanding!!!"

This is something that is said about my airplanes by the majority of users who actually own them. Not all, but most. While I would like to make those cockpits better, I think that most of what you're suggesting is "awful" is actually far from it.

Nore are you🙂

I surgest you ask people who will critic your there work from the stand point of how it should be a lot better, as for price you keep banging on about it, bad modeling and texturing is just that no matter the price.

Also The cockpit in the F-16 is outstanding!!!" 

Yer and people on here..no name said there was nothing wrong with SU5 or SU7!

BTW all the things I point out in the last post had nothing to do with the other sim version so dont make out I did. Poor modeling is poor moderling dont use the price as a reason.

Go look at the Startfighter or the Hawk and tell me thats not worth a pint of beer more. Inside and out a diffrent league. Please dont get mad just get it right. Ask people who will give you good feed back, not blow hot air at you.

[Baber20 1,530]

This is a pass for me. Not really liking the virtual cockpit. Exterior modeling and textures aren't that great either. But hoping that it gets improved further and I might get it later on.

[PDillon86 11]

5 hours 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.

As much as I wanted to like the F-14 it ended up feeling way too much like a modern jet with fly by wire. Hopefully down the road the flight model can be improved to give it that old pre fly by wire feel that it should have. As far as textures, I'm sure others will eventually make some that have the wear and tear so that's not a huge deal imo.  The Rhino with the enhancement mod from flightsim.to have made it probably the best fighter to be released so far in MSFS. Yes I have a lot of time on DCS with the 14,18,etc; But I think with time put in MSFS can have some high level mods that feel just as good as the best DCS modules. I want to see the fighters on MSFS to be able to stand next to the best DCS has and be its equal as a flight model, and I think it's definitely possible. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by PDillon86

[JaseMelbo 395]

I bought this as soon as it released.  Like a lot of you, I love the look of the F16 and its iconic.  Unfortunately the VC and texturing is sub-par.  However, I like that you have spent time with Just Flight to work on your future plans and what's required to get it to the level all of us expect now with a MSFS aircraft.  I'm glad I bought it as not only is it a fun bird to fly, I get to now see you deliver on your promised upgrades for it.  Good luck and please take on board constructive criticism.  Especially the feedback on creating just one variant that is spot on in with systems depth, fidelity and amazing texturing.  Jase

[liamp51 541]

1 hour ago, PDillon86 said:

As much as I wanted to like the F-14 it ended up feeling way too much like a modern jet with fly by wire. Hopefully down the road the flight model can be improved to give it that old pre fly by wire feel that it should have. As far as textures, I'm sure others will eventually make some that have the wear and tear so that's not a huge deal imo.  The Rhino with the enhancement mod from flightsim.to have made it probably the best fighter to be released so far in MSFS. Yes I have a lot of time on DCS with the 14,18,etc; But I think with time put in MSFS can have some high level mods that feel just as good as the best DCS modules. I want to see the fighters on MSFS to be able to stand next to the best DCS has and be its equal as a flight model, and I think it's definitely possible. 

Most of the WW2 birds in MSFS are as absolutely excellent. Personally I don't have a lot of interest in warbirds in a civil sim but I definitely understand the appeal. 

[aniiran 440]

I bought it.  I did an in-depth dive. I'm pretty dissapointed.

I was an F-16 mechanic in The USAF for about 12 years, working block 50/52s c/ds for the 52nd FW at Spangdahlem and the 80th FS at Kunsan AB ROK. I have probably months of time sitting in an F-16 cockpit performing checks loading missiles and and fire guarding. I have seen an F-16 start more times that I'd like to.

I start on the ramp at Tucson and pick the South Carolina F-16 C. I go to the exterior view and it has conformal tanks... what? why?  It's a block 50/52. So then I realize that the default is that the plane is fully loaded with conformal tanks and all the tanks.

I look in the manual but it doesn't make it clear that moving the fuel sliders to 0 for various tank gets rid of the tanks. 

This is what the manual says... "In the above image, the pilot has selected external tanks with 50% fuel in each, has internal fuel ( just out of the menu shot in tanks CENTER 1 and 2 ) and has also loaded AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and two AMRAAM medium-range missiles, by typing in the relevant weights as listed in the stations on the right of the menu. Total weight is 24,820 with 4,087lbs of fuel aboard." that's all it says.  Once I played with it I figured it out but this wording should be more clear.

I want to start the jet so I click on the check list, click on the eye, it doesn't take me to the first item Battery. I know where the battery is (its under the throttle) so I try to find a click zone. cant find one.  I try everything and eventually give up and hit control E.

Now its obvious from the model that the jet fuel starter door isn't going to open up. which is a shame and one of those little details that should be included if paying money.  Interestingly enough, it does make the two loud thrust noises the JSF does.  Over all the sound is realistic from start to finish but the fact you cant start it from the check list and the JFS door doesn't open and spit flames is really disappointing. 

Okay now we are sitting in the cockpit. And it goes from bad to worse. None of the fonts are correct. The HUD does not look like the real hud, it looks like the font used in one of those cars in the 80s that was supposed to be "futuristic"  The font in the displays are all wrong and the displays themselves are not realistic at all. The OSBs do autopilot functions.  there is no SMS or SWAP or really anything.  I mean the stock F-16 in P3D is way more realistic in everyway and it's free with P3D.  The Aerosoft F-16 for FSX was also much more realistic.  The cockpit gets a C- if I were to Grade it. The textures are poor. The wear is very pixelated on the shield, some of the buttons look really bad.   Cheap and Cheerful Xbox Just flight.... blah blah blah.  There is no excuse. So If you want a model with a working cockpit and you are willing to shell out 35 bucks be my guest.

The exterior model is pretty good. I don't really have too many complaints with it.  And texturing is something that the Mod community is probably working on.  The pylons are low poly and lack detail.  The ALICs are badly textured.  The Missiles and tanks themselves look pretty good.  I don't see any glaring defects with the exterior model, just some pixely textures on suspension equipment objects.  looking into the engine looks horrible and low res.  but the exterior of the engine looks great and the cone is well animated.  The turkey feathers look ok and are animated. The PBR looks pretty good on the jet but the missiles should not be shiny. I have loaded hundreds of missiles and they all have a dull matte white finish for the 88s or dull gray for the AIM-9s and AIM-120s.  The tanks look fine. The cockpit and the pilot look good/correct.  The model is pretty good. I'm not sure why the gunport is so weathered.  I have never personally seen one that beat up on a USAF bird.  If they look like that its because it just fired and no one has cleaned it, but a little CLP break free and that sucker looks as good as the rest of the plane. And believe me we clean that thing every time it fires.  The gear retract correctly and look pretty good.  The nose wheel light looks wonky its just a white dot, so that's kinda meh.  I did find a glitch in the model where there are 3 holes in the missile. 

How does it fly? Pretty realistically.  I was able to fly one in 2004 over the Negev desert for a few minutes and it seems like the roll rate is realistic, pitch, yaw seems about right.  Take off feels/looks right.  Landing... is a little bit off i think.  This may be an MSFS limitation but I was unable to achieve a stable approach or pattern.  Once I landed and tried to hold the nose wheel up it kept wanting to take off at a low speed.  The flight dynamics are the least of my concern. 

The sound is pretty good.  I did not hear any of the planes modeled with a Pratt and Whitney engine. No whoop, no ear piecing shriek.  But it might just be I'm not picking the correct plane. I tried the 180th toledo, SCANG, MNANG, The israeli, ROCAF and the aggressor and none of them gave me PW F100 CENC sounds. The Toledo jet should be block 42 PW. so I guess everything is molded after a GE engined jet.. kind of a disappointment. 

Overall, I regret the purchase as the plane is currently.  I think if the cockpit were improved greatly, like actually functioned and The main screens looked like the real thing I would be less disappointed.  If you could at least get to the MAP FLCS HSD and SMS page it would go along way towards realism.  This is not as good as the similarly priced Aerosoft F-16 for FSX, that had limited functionality as far as weaponry but was a pretty close representation to a real F-16... if it were at least at that level, I'd be happy.  79.99 DSC F-16 aside, this one is not worth $35  It's not much better than Bredok3D Eurofighter Typhoon.  It seems effort went into this but its about 80% of the way to being a good value. If its true Just flight wanted this designed this way... and maybe that is true... they have misread the room.  But maybe the people who fly in exterior view won't care.   That seems to be what a lot of these addons are banking on.    .... Performance is good.

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by aniiran
add breaks in imgs

[DC1973 522]

Finally, at least an honest presentation of the airplane by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. After Nyxx's final, incoherent post, I decided to just hide everything he says, it's just trolling by any other name - he's coincidentally done the same thing on every one of my launches, and started this time with falsehoods, outright lies etc etc. I wonder what the moderators are looking at when they allow that sort of thing to happen repeatedly?

Most of your negative points are, in one way or another, MSFS related - HUD and displays are HTML coded and we, like everybody else, are new to that. We don't yet have the knowledge of the sim to produce precise representations of the displays. Likewise for the MFDs, which we have opted to place displays that are MSFS relevant rather than more accurate, but currently useless, images.

The cockpit, as mentioned in previous posts, will be getting an upgrade. You have to remember though that comparing this to an Aerosoft P3D version is also difficult as that platform also had the benefit it years of coding knowledge, although now we have the Asobo F-18E with what appear to be the beginning of more complex displays and functions, we may be able to start replicating those.

I would suggest that comparing this airplane to the Bredok Typhoon is very insulting though. That "developer" stole code from my airplanes to produce theirs, doesn't care about their community or customers and whacks out airplanes every couple of months that don't have functioning instruments at all. The difference is night and day for SC Designs.

Still, all points taken aboard, constructive and knowledgeable criticism is both helpful and useful.

Thanks.

 

ETA: I checked up on the fuel tanks and battery switch. Asobo helpfully completely changed the fuel tank system in MSFS, so that .flt files no longer respond to fuel tanks settings at start up. Once we understand the new system and implement it, the flight start ups will be fuel tank free for the user. This F-16 package is not intended though to represent any particular block, it's a general representation of the airplane.

The battery switch has been moved because in MSFS at this time, when you hover the mouse to start the switch in its proper place, all that happens is that the throttle is selected ( it's over the battery switch location in the real F-16 ) so users cannot start the battery. It was moved alongside the avionics switch for now, until a way can be found to allow for proper use of the battery switch in its intended location. 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by DC1973
Fuel tanks situation and battery switch

[Brownshortz 26]

It's probably just me but I find flying any military jet in MFFS a bit of a waste of time. I mean don't get me wrong....i love jets and all. Its just that as soon as I get in one my first instinct is to blow stuff up...something you can't really do in MSFS. If I want combat I'll fly DCS or IL2. Much rather have a great DC3 plane to fly in MSFS than an F-18 or F-16.  

[Nyxx 6,994]

I know he is not reading this but anyone can read my first reply and see I was talking about the F-16 and it being my fav aircraft I only used the DCS screenshot as there handy. ( I even said sorry for it but it saved trying to find them angles of real F-16) I also pointed out how it should be landed. 

I did not at any point compair like for like with the DCS version. I watch youtube showing this and posted screen shots of what is clear to see. 

Also i had no idea this was the same people as the F-14 and if Mr DC1973 is so upset at me pointing out its short coming i find it funny that after a full run throught from the guy below, he thinks thats "criticism is both helpful and useful" It was as damming as anyone has been.

8 hours ago, aniiran said:

The textures are poor. The wear is very pixelated on the shield, some of the buttons look really bad.   Cheap and Cheerful Xbox Just flight.... blah blah blah.  There is no excuse. So If you want a model with a working cockpit and you are willing to shell out 35 bucks be my guest

Am sorry for upsetting him. But I say what i see and anyone can watch what i did. Also all the feed back here is saying the same.

I do hope they focus on somthing along the lines of the Hawk or Starfighter standard becasue then I to will be blowing hot air at them saying how good it is. Sometimes the truth hurts. 

I wont result to personly insults like he has done and I wont even report him for it. He likes to talk about Mods but there very good and very fair but throwing personly insults is no allowed. Its OK i dont mind.

Sorry to any that do not know am have dyslexia, so my spelling and grammer are really bad. 

Fingers crossed for there next release.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Nyxx

[jcomm 6,095]

It's really very difficult to try to compare MFS to DCS... Useless indeed because presently MFS FDM lags so far behind what is done in the DCS advanced FM that it's ...

At another forum I could read how painful it is for a developer trying to bring a Concorde into MFS his work is, given the many limitations / simplifications used in MFS at it's present stage.

People can say they enjoy the gorgeous aircraft and smoothness, which can hide the fact that some aspects of flying a delta wing or entering supersonic flight are so far from realism that they really turn MFS into an arcade, but if they look at real numbers, effects, data, I am sure they'll find out that so far ASOBO's FDM is not meant for such incursions...

Will this change ?  Don't know, and yet I still like to use MFS from time to time due to the feel that some GA aircraft can give me, or the PMDG dc-6, or the FBW A32x.

Edited December 9, 2021 by jcomm