Not happy about topic closure...( Corsair)

[MattNischan 3,870]

Jorg dislikes war, and doesn't see any good or benefit coming from displaying or glorifying weapons in what is supposed to be something garnering the childlike awe of flying through the skies. And that's the full long and short of it.

If that offends someone's strange perception of strength and free speech, so be it, but I think he's right.

[Christopher Low 5,393]

Nobody likes war, but displaying a 3D model of an aircraft as it is supposed to look is just common sense. There is nothing strange about it.

[Blueline308 127]

5 hours ago, gb09f said:

It's a Flight Simulator not a Gun Simulator.

I'm with Microsoft on this one. 

Then they should remove the whole Top Gun mess and not allow ANY combat planes because IRL these planes have only two purposes...death & destruction.  They are weapons platforms.

[Blueline308 127]

16 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

Jorg dislikes war, and doesn't see any good or benefit coming from displaying or glorifying weapons in what is supposed to be something garnering the childlike awe of flying through the skies. And that's the full long and short of it.

If that offends someone's strange perception of strength and free speech, so be it, but I think he's right.

Why include the F-18 in the game then.  Do you think it was developed to inspire awe in kids?  No, it was developed to destroy and kill.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Blueline308

[St Mawgan 1,405]

2 minutes ago, Blueline308 said:

Then they should remove the whole Top Gun mess and not allow ANY combat planes because IRL these planes have only two purposes...death & destruction.  They are weapons platforms.

Three, airshows. 

[sd_flyer 6,092]

Just a wait a bit and get for DCS. Problem solved

https://stormbirds.blog/2023/01/11/a-small-dcs-f4u-corsair-update/

[Blueline308 127]

Just now, St Mawgan said:

Three, airshows. 

No sir.  They get displayed at airshows, but that is not their purpose.  I guess you were joking.

[St Mawgan 1,405]

Just now, Blueline308 said:

No sir.  They get displayed at airshows, but that is not their purpose.  I guess you were joking.

Not at all. They aren't armed at airshows either. Neither are any of the WWII displays. So, three. 

I use my F-18 for sightseeing anyway 😉

[sd_flyer 6,092]

Flying museum. Just for airshow!

https://planesoffame.org/aircraft/plane-F4U-1A

[keithb77 311]

99% of military flying is for training, without weapons.

The aircraft this thread is specifically about nowadays ONLY flys at airshows and training/recreation.

[St Mawgan 1,405]

5 minutes ago, keithb77 said:

99% of military flying is for training, without weapons.

The aircraft this thread is specifically about nowadays ONLY flys at airshows and training/recreation.

Exactly, so the version the Marketplace is selling is completely accurate. 

[Dominique_K 10,152]

1/ It is their shop. They sell what is agreeable to them (and legit). You don't like it, you go elsewhere. But they should warn when a product has some features absent or disabled. It seems they don't.

2/ I've been flying WW2 and cold war warbirds in sims for about twenty years. It has never been about armament but about driving powerful machines which try to kill you if you don't fly them properly. The MS FS is a civil franchise and should stay this way. 

[Blueline308 127]

9 minutes ago, St Mawgan said:

Not at all. They aren't armed at airshows either. Neither are any of the WWII displays. So, three. 

I use my F-18 for sightseeing anyway 😉

And?  The point is that they allow planes in the game which were DEVELOPED to kill and destroy, not to sightsee in or ferry people.  Armed or not, the inclusion of the plane is hypocritical.  

[MattNischan 3,870]

1 minute ago, Blueline308 said:

Armed or not, the inclusion of the plane is hypocritical.  

If showing the world that an aircraft can be just as awe-inspiring to youngsters when it is not in a state any more deadly than than a 172 is hypocritical, I suspect everyone involved would gladly own that title, then.

You don't need to add pixels full of AIM-9s that you can't even shoot to prove that very, very important point.

[Blueline308 127]

1 minute ago, MattNischan said:

If showing the world that an aircraft can be just as awe-inspiring to youngsters when it is not in a state any more deadly than than a 172 is hypocritical, I suspect everyone involved would gladly own that title, then.

You don't need to add pixels full of AIM-9s that you can't even shoot to prove that very, very important point.

Inspire them to do what?  To fly fighter planes IRL?  How is that not perpetuating what MS is taking a stand against?  I just don't see how allowing the weapons to be rendered (non operational) on Marketplace planes is harmful.