5 hours ago, Brownshortz said:

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.  

It's just you 😉

I am guessing probably 99% of flight time in actual military jets does not involve blowing things up.  I enjoy simulating a training flight in a military jet just as much as I enjoy simulating an ATP flight in an A320 or a private pilot flight in a 172.  Then again I am probably weird, as I don't tend to fire weapons even in DCS (I usually spend my DCS time working on Solo or formation demo flying)

Edited December 9, 20214 yr by PlumCrazy

45 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

 Then again I am probably weird, as I don't tend to fire weapons even in DCS (I usually spend my DCS time working on Solo or formation demo flying)

You might be weird but you’re not alone. I discovered a while back that I’m more interested in formation flying than ‘kersplosions or shootin’ stuff up😀

 

On 12/8/2021 at 1:27 PM, 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.

 .  .  . Not that I think 90% of users will care.

David, I've absolutely no doubt that is the case. But this ain't real life - it's a sim, or a game, or a bit of eye candy (delete as per your preference)

But you're totally right. And as one of those 90% I can happily confirm your hypothesis - I don't care! <grin>

(And I do have DCS, but can never be bothered to get to grips with the complexities of flying there. Looks nice though)

49 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

David, I've absolutely no doubt that is the case. But this ain't real life - it's a sim, or a game, or a bit of eye candy (delete as per your preference)

But you're totally right. And as one of those 90% I can happily confirm your hypothesis - I don't care! <grin>

(And I do have DCS, but can never be bothered to get to grips with the complexities of flying there. Looks nice though)

And thats what is wonderful about MSFS flight sim, it does not matter how I or you use it, as long as you or I are enjoying it, thats all that matters. Each to there own. If someone want to fly external view with an xbox controller then great. As you say DCS is at the other end of that scale and is a huge learning curve and its not for you. (But this topic is not about DCS.)Thats great you enjoy what you find Fun and enjoyable. I see on flightsim.to a Lego X wing with 3000 DL, happy days if that makes people happy.

Some its a game, some try to use it as a true to life simulation. The two are very diffrent but MSFS can be used for both.🙂A lot of people here have been flight sim'ing for years and its there hobbie and that again is at the other end of your "game" or "a bit of eye candy". You only have to see the depth of what some people want with AI to see the full on simulation side some want. MSFS/Xbox made it also a game and people that like it  as a game like you so "don't care" and "<grin>", at the people that its more there hobbie and like wise "<grin>" we are both happy. All good. Fenix will hopefully make us "simmers" very happy.

Edited December 9, 20214 yr by Nyxx

An interesting thread on the limitations presently faced by developers looking after the implementation of delta wings or wings with considerable wing sweep and other aerodynamic peculiarities :

https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/questions/3640/wing-sweep-and-cp-position.html

WASM-ization of the flight model can probably be the last resort... Nothing bad about it, but I would rather have a fully featured in-sim FDM.

Edited December 9, 20214 yr by jcomm

7 minutes ago, jcomm said:

An interesting thread on the limitations presently faced by developers looking after the implementation of delta wings or wings with considerable wing sweep and other aerodynamic peculiarities :

https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/questions/3640/wing-sweep-and-cp-position.html

WASM-ization of the flight model can probably be the last resort... Nothing bad about it, but I would rather have a fully featured in-sim FDM.

This is my flight modeler who is working on Concorde on my behalf. There is a real problem with the ability of MSFS to model vortex lift, a crucial part of the delta-wing design ( and others, no doubt ).

I have a way to "get around" this that he also thinks will work, but it would be so much better if Asobo just gave us back the same data we used to be able to use in FSX. I have no idea why they withheld so much of it, such a shame as although there was a lot of old baggage that could be dispensed with, they seemed to throw out a lot of useful tables at the same time for no real reason.

21 hours ago, DC1973 said:

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. 

 

 

I was a bit harsh.  I understand a lot of work goes into these things.  But there has been a rash of pushing unrealistic airplanes out to the masses and then when they call the developer on it they go well it's only x amount of dollars.  I assure you the flight sim community will shell out the dollars if it is a great addon.  I don't even like the DC-6.  I have never even seen a DC-6, but I HAD to buy PMDGs DC-6 because everyone said it was so good.  I understand that the SDK isn't as mature, but it seems like some developers are figuring it out.  For instance the Aerosoft CRJ has a custom HUD that is realistic.  So some knows how to do it.  Aerosoft is a major player so there is probably some things smaller developers don't have access to do.  But we all know its possible. I also know it is hard to get really good pictures of the F-16 or any military jet.  but... there are plenty of digital examples that are spot on with the real thing.  It's also possibly your beta testers let you down.  I'm not sure how some people become beta testers but they really should have some credentials.  I used to develop for FS9, and I got some horrible "beta testers" that would say oh it's awesome I love it. Then when it was released my inbox was flooded with people telling me this or that is unrealistic or wrong. 

These are my major fixes that would make the Airplane whole for me.

-Jet fuel starter doors animated.  The canopy is animated so I know you and your team have the talent.   They are open at 2:35 and close at 2:42

-Higher res cockpit shield textures.  Nothing sinks a plane faster than low res cockpit textures.

-Working on the displays.  We aren't asking for DCS but seeing completely wrong screens are a real immersion killer. I would even be better off  with just screens that look right but don't do anything. Maybe you can hit SWAP and they can change that should be fairly simple, maybe there is a way to take the current loadout and display it in the SMS screen?   TEST screen should be easy to emulate.

-Change the red switch on the left side of the joystick to gray rather than red.

-Make the DED font the right size.  There are only 5 lines maximum all uniform in size.

-Once the Technology is available make the HUD look more realistic.

Night lighting needs to be improved quite a bit.  Every thing in an F-16 at night is illuminated green, not white.

-The OSBs should be textured with the white square that is illuminated green at night.  They just look like shiny gray blocks. 

-It looks like the NAV lights are bleeding into the cockpit.

 

 

 

The modding community is already doing some great work. 

I guess you don't owe us a thing but... I implore you to work on this more as a gesture of good will and commitment to developing good realistic planes.    

Edited December 10, 20214 yr by aniiran
finally found a video with JFS doors

3 hours ago, aniiran said:

I guess you don't owe us a thing but... I implore you to work on this more as a gesture of good will and commitment to developing good realistic planes.    

All developers owe their customers something, at least in my personal point of view - we wouldn't exist without each other. DC Designs always updates aircraft routinely, as we have done since we started in 2018.

All noted, some things such as truly accurate custom HTML displays are the work of months, so they'll be in the future, but much of what you mention is actually quite feasible for near-future updates. I was looking at the cockpit last night and realised that I'd missed some things that you hadn't mentioned - the HUD keypad panel needed to protrude much further out from the glareshield than it does, and the glareshield itself is not deep enough. Green lighting is no problem. Little extra bits of  knowledge like this are very helpful. JFS Starter door is also not an issue, although having flames spurt from it ( which would have been easy in FSX and P3D ) will come later as the effects system is very new.

All added to the list ready for the New Year to start bringing the cockpit up to scratch.

 

P.S. Believe it or not, all of the cockpit textures are 4K. It's not the textures themselves that are always the issue, but the way PBR is applied and how it reacts to light in a particular piece of software. There is something that other devs are doing with PBR that is fundamentally different to what I'm doing, but I haven't figured out quite what it is yet. Once I do, the textures should look far better right away. 

 

Edited December 10, 20214 yr by DC1973
PBR

6 hours ago, aniiran said:

I was a bit harsh.  I understand a lot of work goes into these things.  But there has been a rash of pushing unrealistic airplanes out to the masses and then when they call the developer on it they go well it's only x amount of dollars.  I assure you the flight sim community will shell out the dollars if it is a great addon.  I don't even like the DC-6.  I have never even seen a DC-6, but I HAD to buy PMDGs DC-6 because everyone said it was so good.  I understand that the SDK isn't as mature, but it seems like some developers are figuring it out.  For instance the Aerosoft CRJ has a custom HUD that is realistic.  So some knows how to do it.  Aerosoft is a major player so there is probably some things smaller developers don't have access to do.  But we all know its possible. I also know it is hard to get really good pictures of the F-16 or any military jet.  but... there are plenty of digital examples that are spot on with the real thing.  It's also possibly your beta testers let you down.  I'm not sure how some people become beta testers but they really should have some credentials.  I used to develop for FS9, and I got some horrible "beta testers" that would say oh it's awesome I love it. Then when it was released my inbox was flooded with people telling me this or that is unrealistic or wrong. 

These are my major fixes that would make the Airplane whole for me.

-Jet fuel starter doors animated.  The canopy is animated so I know you and your team have the talent.   They are open at 2:35 and close at 2:42

-Higher res cockpit shield textures.  Nothing sinks a plane faster than low res cockpit textures.

-Working on the displays.  We aren't asking for DCS but seeing completely wrong screens are a real immersion killer. I would even be better off  with just screens that look right but don't do anything. Maybe you can hit SWAP and they can change that should be fairly simple, maybe there is a way to take the current loadout and display it in the SMS screen?   TEST screen should be easy to emulate.

-Change the red switch on the left side of the joystick to gray rather than red.

-Make the DED font the right size.  There are only 5 lines maximum all uniform in size.

-Once the Technology is available make the HUD look more realistic.

Night lighting needs to be improved quite a bit.  Every thing in an F-16 at night is illuminated green, not white.

-The OSBs should be textured with the white square that is illuminated green at night.  They just look like shiny gray blocks. 

-It looks like the NAV lights are bleeding into the cockpit.

The modding community is already doing some great work. 

I guess you don't owe us a thing but... I implore you to work on this more as a gesture of good will and commitment to developing good realistic planes.    

I real hope he invites you to the beta team. You have pointed out all the things I see but in a much better articulate way. I said in the very first line I wrote this is my favorite fighter. Just becasue I posted pictures of this amazing aircraft from another sim send him over the edge. Along with a filpent comment of how it looks. O well.

If everything you said was put right, adding to that, the HUD does not need to goto AA or AG as no weapons in MSFS. Also like you say we then dont need all the pagers to show weapons etc etc that all tie in with that side. But a wonderfully F-16 feeling and looking like one with no weapons would be great. Also it needs as we both said to land right, as you point out, not wanting to takeoff when holding the nose at around around 12 deg AOA. 

Its frustrating really I would buy it like I have the Hawk and the Startfighter, but from spenting time in one in another sim and as you see from your works its frustrating to see things that simply looking at photos on the net would and should have stoped the glaring mistakes even making it to alpha let alone release.

I do hope you get on the team and they put all this right and you have an input on anything more they make in this line of aircraft. They would be very hard push to find anyone that works on these so they should jump at the chance of your help. Anyone thats got a lot of time in these, even in another sim could also help out a lot.

O well, I wish you and them the best, I really do.

Edited December 10, 20214 yr by Nyxx

22 hours ago, jcomm said:

t's really very difficult to try to compare MFS to DCS

Not really,  msfs is for civilian aircraft and dcs is for military aircraft 🙂

4 hours ago, DC1973 said:

Little extra bits of  knowledge like this are very helpful

 

 

From a purely visual standpoint, you could probably get all the knowledge you need from spending time in the DCS F-16 cockpit 😉

(I don't think anyone here expects your systems to be modeled to the level of DCS.  But I  would love for the visuals to be at the same level!

33 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

 

From a purely visual standpoint, you could probably get all the knowledge you need from spending time in the DCS F-16 cockpit 😉

(I don't think anyone here expects your systems to be modeled to the level of DCS.  But I  would love for the visuals to be at the same level!

I would have done long ago, but the immaturity and ignorance of so many from the DCS community, here and elsewhere on the Internet, such as the post above yours, convinced me long ago that it's not a place I ever will want to spend any time at all.

I am intending however to study some imagery and also have a few friends who can get some more accurate research material for me, ready for the big upgrade. I'm genuinely excited to do it for all my products, it's time now, the sim can clearly handle high detail at high speed at low altitude.

Edited December 10, 20214 yr by DC1973
Typo

@Nyxx I think it is best for you if you take a break from this thread.  You are not discussing anymore, you are only here to discredit a fellow avsimmer and attempt to make him "look bad". 

You clearly have an agenda. And it is toxic. Why continue?

 

9 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

@Nyxx I think it is best for you if you take a break from this thread.  You are not discussing anymore, you are only here to discredit a fellow avsimmer and attempt to make him "look bad". 

You clearly have an agenda. And it is toxic. Why continue?

 

yes, some people here are like that. 

16 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

@Nyxx I think it is best for you if you take a break from this thread.  You are not discussing anymore, you are only here to discredit a fellow avsimmer and attempt to make him "look bad". 

You clearly have an agenda. And it is toxic. Why continue?

 

OK this is by last reply you have my word, but I take deep offence at what you say, so go read back.

"do hope you get on the team and they put all this right and you have an input on anything more they make in this line of aircraft. They would be very hard push to find anyone that works on these so they should jump at the chance of your help. Anyone thats got a lot of time in these, even in another sim could also help out a lot.

O well, I wish you and them the best, I really do."

Thats toxic is it? If I have a "agenda" its only wishing it was better. Thats Toxic is it. Am done you have my word.🤬 I will go even more I wont even read this topic again OK!!!!!!

 

Edited December 10, 20214 yr by Nyxx