Bombs on aircraft

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

It looks like 3rd party developers are looking to provide users with as much weaponry as MS will allow.It will be interesting to see how far MS allow this to go.

[Guest grapesh]

><simulators is essentially the same...>>>>Really? I see them as totally different products. With a>civilian simulator I create a flight plan, program it into my>CDU, feed it to Radar Contact for realistic ATC and fly from A>to B as realistic as my flying skills and ambient weather>allow. My choice of aircraft will be either a Boeing 737 or>Concorde.Everything you listed above holds for majority of realistic combat missions except it would be KC-135, U2 or MiG29 instead of B737. >In a combat simulator I assume the purpose is to shoot down as>many enemy aircraft as possible or to blow up as many>ground-based objects as possible in order to achieve a high>score.Score is not the goal of realistic combat mission! There is a variety of military missions that have no weapon-firing objectives. Don't assume the CFS is all about the score! -- one can assume the same about FSX based on those "fly through the hoop" arcade missions! Instead, both simulators need a "career" or "campaign" skill-scorer if need be.>They couldn't be more different! Piloting skills are secondary>to the score you achieve.Again, I'm definitely not talking about score. By the way, flying most historical combat planes requires a lot of piloting skills. It is hard to imagine how they got to shoot and fly them at the same time :-)The similarities I had in mind are:1. They have the same flight dynamics2. They have the same 3d world3. They have the same atmosphere.etc...Just compare the subfolders in FS9 and CFS2 and you'll see that you have many files twice on your HDD. well, you probably don't have it, but I can tell you it got me thinking just from the practical side of view: the difference is just a military aspect (weapons, damage, missions). The rest IS the same.>><<...so combat-related part can be sold as a separate add-on>to the civil flight simulator. You probably won't buy it, but>I will and so many others.>>>>I don't have a problem with that but it would disappoint me if>Microsoft went down that route.As I remember, there was a separate team for MS CFS: they could resurrect and contribute military add-on to the already mature virtual world FSX without reinventing the wheel. Everyone should do their job.><proximity of civil aircraft or big cities etc...>>>>It won't be that attractive then! ;) Some hardcore users want>total realism. Would you want a product to give users that>option? I personally want great FSX engine and its wonderful virtual world to serve as a stage for combat flying too. I don't want to buy another flight simulator just because I can't shoot in FSX. Its like installing 2 FSXs on one drive -- unpractical!>Back in 2001 we had idiots posting videos of aircraft flying>into the WTC to show what could be achieved with something the>public could buy. The media went ape over that and FS2002 had>to be held back and modified if I remember correctly.>Producers have to be very careful introducing violence into>flight simulation products in these sensitive times.As I said, there are means of controlling what/where/when you can and you cannot do with simulated weaponry. There are missions that can be combined with civilian FS world. Others can be done in pure CFS mode. ><bombs and stay "responsible", we just shouldn't refuse talking>about. >>>>I'm not refusing to talk about it. Quite the opposite>actually. I'm not normally this vocal about FS things.Ok, let's talk then! I hope you see my point that CFS can be a legitimate addon to FS without any WTC-crashing footages on YouTube. However I don't believe it is a real problem here.Cheers,=S.V.=

[Guest lc0277]

I'm not dealing with the ethical issues. They are stupid. It you don't want to see bombs, then just don't add them to your flight simulator.As said previously, you can make your own missions with droppable payload. But if you don't have FSX deluxe (needed to use the mission editor), here is a simpler method :- Install the bomb model, for example the Mk82 by Phill Stokes, available here at avsim. Make sure you unzipped the Mk82/ directory just under the FSX/SimObjects/Misc folder (the archive has a readme file)- select or create your favorite flight, for instance a cold and dark situation at some RAF airbase- choose Flight->Save and save it to some file. Remember the flight title, here I called it "BombingMission"- Go to "My Documents/Flight Simulator X Files" (the name may change if you have a different FS language). Open the file named "BombingMission.FLT" with notepad or another text editor. - Add the following 2 lines at the end of file:[DroppableObjects.0]ObjectSet.0=Mk82_1, 4The "Mk82_1" is the container title of your payload. The 4 is the initial number of items you want- Load your modified flight.

[GHarrall 494]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with air-to-air combat within FSX. I would make it guns only though. There is no need to add 'special effects' for being shot down, just the standard crash type scenario would work. There is also no need for 'high scores' or 'points'. I think this would be great for the multiplayer aspect. Think about the aircraft you could pitch against each other. Alphasim have a ton of miltary aircraft to try. I don't think this would take anything away from the civilian aspect of FSX. It's not that much different than the air racing missions already supplied and seems a logical step to me. Anything is better than resorting to CFS3 or IL-2. They seem so dated now.......Glenn

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

Hi,<>Let me say that I have no problem with military aircraft in FS. No problem with any of the above. The thing I have a problem with is the shooting down of other aircraft and dropping bombs / launching missiles at ground-based objects. Nothing anyone will say will change my view on that in FS.<>Okay. I don't have a problem with you flying a U2 spying mission over the old Soviet Union and getting home in one piece to gain kudos. :-)<>The similarities I had in mind are:1. They have the same flight dynamics2. They have the same 3d world3. They have the same atmosphere.etc...>>I wouldn't disagree with any of that. The Battle of Britain springs to mind. Flying a Spitfire takes skill and I believe there is a 3rd party Spit available for FS. But it's purely reconnaisance - no cannon ;)Imagine the uproar in the combat FS newsgroups if I suggested they start including civilian aircraft and ILSs and VORs! They'd not be too happy with me.Anyway, I imagine that decent combat flight sims are already out there and are already DX10 compliant and offer better performance than FSX. Do none of those attract you? What about IL2 Sturmovik?<>Yes but you strike me as a sensible person. The kids out there will start demanding bigger bombs and explosions. They'll probably demand nukes for pete's sake! Where does it all end?And if you turn FS into a combat simulator with all the negative baggage that acccompanies it these boards won't be filled with discussion on the latest airport addon but nonsense about how you can tweak the cfg to make your explosions bigger!I rest my case :-)

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

<>It might be sufficient for sensible people but once you start adding weaponry it has to be sufficently 'dramatic' to make it attractive to the young bucks! They won't be happy unless there are big explosions.<>Sorry Glenn but I think there's a world of difference between racing someone and trying to shoot them down. FSX is the only civilian flight simulator left (XPlane is hardly mentioned these days) so why can't it be left alone? There are already combat flight sims out there. You mentioned IL-2. Why not suggest in their newsgroup to make them better if you find them lacking?Cheers,

[Guest grapesh]

>Nothing anyone will say will change my view on that in FS.Fine! I won't waste my time :)>Imagine the uproar in the combat FS newsgroups if I suggested>they start including civilian aircraft and ILSs and VORs!>They'd not be too happy with me.Well, but how you gonna land a fighter jet in a complete overcast?? I'm not 100% sure but my sense is serious CFS like LOMAC have instrument modeling...>Anyway, I imagine that decent combat flight sims are already>out there and are already DX10 compliant and offer better>performance than FSX. Do none of those attract you? What about>IL2 Sturmovik?I admire IL2. But I don't like limited coverage, limited weather, etc. What if I want to refly a land-lease route from US to USSR over Alaska before actually starting the East Front campaign? I will have to go back to FSX, with its global coverage and a real-time weather.><a legitimate addon to FS without any WTC-crashing footages on>YouTube. However I don't believe it is a real problem here.>>>>Yes but you strike me as a sensible person. The kids out there>will start demanding bigger bombs and explosions. They'll>probably demand nukes for pete's sake! Where does it all end?I can see rivers of blood, beheaded corpses and explosions of body parts in modern shooters, and that IS a real thing to worry about. If people could see and comprehend the amount of destruction after nuclear detonation or air strike, we would see much less support for war by now. Anyway, if someone wants to blow up a megaton bomb on his computer, he can do it in a combat mode - that's ok! - if all they destroy is enemy's military objects. But the most fun in simulation is its realism, so I don't think chasing bigger explosions will last long for those who gets truly hooked on FS.>And if you turn FS into a combat simulator with all the>negative baggage that acccompanies it these boards won't be>filled with discussion on the latest airport addon but>nonsense about how you can tweak the cfg to make your>explosions bigger!Current military addon devs are as thorough and precise as those who build civilian airports. And there is a variety of discussion boards that can accommodate any aspect of simulation: from FMC to Sidewinders :-). Cheers,=S.V.=

[Guest Stoopy]

Thanks for the clarification, Ray, and I understand.And, with all due respect may I submit the following for consideration - I do not want to belabor the point, but I feel there are some disconnects on what's being suggested. I base this on being a fellow "old timer" when it comes to sims, and I'll spare the usual details since they're somewhat commonplace in a forum with many other experienced users such as this. Anyway....- I see references inferring a direct relationship between "combat" and "game" as in, arcade. Actually I believe the vast majority of those interested in the combat aspects of simming crave the same realism as any of the most dedicated simmers here, and would take equal amount of umbrage at such a comparison as you would were the same to be said of the MSFS series (re: the occasional and tiresome "Is it a sim or a game" threads). We don't want an unrealistic sim any more than you do (and the way CFS3 flopped really bears this point out!). I see the IL/2 series mentioned below and coincidentally, that product tends to support this idea by offering complex engine management and may other features that are naturally "unfriendly" to the "arcade FPS types", and it definitely has a long learning curve. But although it's fine in it's own right (and yes I own the whole series as well) and the best that's offered at the moment, despite the attempt at full-on realism it lacks many, many features that the MS platform has included for some time. Significant among these are:....Open architecture, with a huge selection of freeware and payware add-ons, as opposed to closed architecture with aircraft and flight models developed per one team (or one person's) vision....Worldwide, global coverage, as opposed to a handful of "map areas"....a (in comparison) sophisticated and capable weather system (add FEX and pending weather add-ons and inarguably, this won't be topped for years to come). That's a short list off the top of my head but you get the idea. I'll reiterate that realism is truly craved, this means subtle effects and not huge bang-bang game-type explosions and "stuff that blows up real good". HALO3 was just released, those types will be busy for a long time. What's needed is actually subtlety, such as fine mists of streaming glycol from a damaged aircraft cooling system or your wingman being able to pull alongside and be able to tell a hydraulic fluid leak from a fuel leak. - I understand - fully - that no one, including the most fervent combat simmer, wants a civilian flight sim experience to be interrupted with irresponsible shooters and whatnot barging into a flight sim environment and this applies, really, to multiplayer environments of course. I don't want Spitfires interrupting my bush flying either. This is easily addressable by many means, beginning with something so simple as adding a "Combat enabled" type of bit flag to the data packet sent/received between the host and client to identify a civilian online simmer vs., a combat online simmer, and ensuring that only those of the same type shall join an online session which is set by the host to be either, but not both, types. This way you won't even have to worry about being "buzzed" by some hot-shot punk in an F4U or whatever. Easily done with less than a byte worth of data.- Certainly, the point of "development time" being spent on what features/fixes/enhancement is a valid one. Quite obviously I fly FSX as well and want to see the product line continue to mature and grow. But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that MS/ACES sees a marketing opportunity (and there is one, I'm sure of it) and decide to put their energies toward a combat-oriented FS. Almost certainly, that's going to take away a formidable share of available development time from the same team that would be working on civilian enhancements (it's going to need the basics of a flight simulator, and their subject matter experts would be needed). The development time to build a completely new sim would be far greater than the alternative of using an existing platform. So adding on to the existing platform thus takes away less overall development time and getting them back to work on the civilian aspect. The "Adrenaline" add-on demonstrates this concept well, since they're now wrapping it up and without taking much of a break at all from SP1 and SP2 development, right?Lastly, lets dig back in the past...two quick examples:CFS2, arguably the most successful and treasured CFS release, was essentially based on the MSFS flight sim platform, and shared many features, effects, even base aircraft and flight models. Later when it was discovered how to transfer worldwide scenery from FS, it really opened up the possibilities. Sadly tho, this was only available to those in the know and not Joe Public. CFS1 was also based on it's MSFS equivalent at the time as well. Seems to be a proven formula. Going back further....let's not forget that the first iterations of what became MSFS, Sublogic Flight Sim (v2 and v3 I believe, I started with v3) contained a "Red Baron" entertainment option (okay, somewhat gamey but there it is) and who here that flew that version can say they didn't "recreate" a bit by crossing the river in their trusty Sopwith Camel to take out a factory or airbase and escape from the dreaded Red Baron (who

[GHarrall 494]

"It might be sufficient for sensible people but once you start adding weaponry it has to be sufficently 'dramatic' to make it attractive to the young bucks! They won't be happy unless there are big explosions."That's the point though Ray. I don't really want it to be attractive to the young bucks as you put it.If it can be handled in an adult manner without 'shoot em up' kids taking over the airwaves then why not? As mentioned above, it can only improve piloting skills.Each to their own though Ray. No problem with that.On another note, I notice that you are close to EGCC. I am originally from Stafford. You will find my dad spotting at EGCC at least once a week!Glenn

[Guest Stoopy]

Dang! I just wrote a fairly similar and emphatic response below, and now wish I'd come up to this part first as it says much the same thing, and a bit more....good conversation here.

[Guest grapesh]

Man! :-beerchug Absolutely agree with your post!Let's convert this unbeliever :-)Cheers,=S.V.=

[Guest S77th-GOYA]

Mr. Proudfoot, from my comprehension of his posts, simply doesn't want anyone to be able to use MSFS for any form of violent simulations. He would prefer that anyone flying one of the magnificent machines, past and present, built for aerial combat or ground pounding be forced to continue to fly inert, neutered aircraft. He certainly has the right to his opinion. I certainly won't try to change his mind but I feel compelled to point out some misconceptions he seems to have.I come from the LOMAC community and will use that as an example. 1. There is NOTHING the community wants more than realism. The SU-25T addon has what the developers of LOMAC call Advanced Flight Modeling. Or AFM for short. It is easily the best flight/ground model I have ever had the pleasure of flying in any sim. (try it and land a little screwy and see what happens ;-) )Upon its release, the community cried out for such attention to detail to be applied to all the flyable aircraft flight models in LOMAC. Unforunately the developers are concentrating on a new addon, the Kamov Ka-50, and don't have the resources to update all the flight models.There are several members of the community doing extensive research on aircraft and their systems. All with the goal of providing information to improve the fidelity of the sim.(The IL2 forums are notorious for debates over the correct modeling of its aircraft. And if you want hardcore procedure, try cold starting the F-16 in Falcon4.0)2. Regarding explosions attracting the "wrong element"(my phrase), flight sims by nature have a steep learning curve. I have seen a few folks who would be much better served with a shoot-em-up arcade type game such as Aces High or even Crimson Skies. Those people never last in a sim situation. I don't know what it is exactly but I'll say those folks lack the passion for aviation, be it civil or combat, that gives them the perseverence necessary to become proficient. Flight simming is generally not for the immature crowds although there have been some fine young people that do quite well.3. Imagine Mr. Proudfoot's surprise to learn the there have been requests to add civilian aircraft to LOMAC. And that every aircraft that actually uses ILS has it modeled. The Russian planes have the very realistic Russian way of projecting the ILS guides on thier HUDs. VORs are not modeled because the aircraft navigate using different methods. More like an FCS in MSFS. (Military aircraft can't depend on VORs that may not be transmitting when they need them.) There are mods to fly tankers and AWACS. There are tools to provide human ATC/GCI.4. There is a failure engine that can help a pilot learn how handle emergencies. Landing an F-15 with ACS failure is not to be taken lightly unless one has experienced it and learned how to deal with it.I could go on but this has become a lengthy post already. I just felt a need to set the record straight for anyone who may feel that those involved with combat flight simming are somehow less interested in fidelity or somehow "dumbed-down" in comparison to the MSFS crowd.

[Guest threedeltamax]

><<.what, in the above question and topic, would possibly>prevent you from simply continuing to do so regardless of what>interests in the sim the OP decides to engage in??>>>>I agree it might not affect how I use FS but I don't believe>Microsoft should go down that route and wanted to say so>publicly.Ray, you are most correct none of this will affect how you use flight simulator. It's not beyond the scope of the current platform to engineer a bombing mechanism within FS. Of course Microsft has not provided any readily available way of doing it easily - but as with most aspects of FS Development reverse engineering is a necessary evil to achieve results.On first glance, you comment come across as trying to mandate how people should use FS...As far as I am concerned, even if it DOES attract "undesirables" than it is only boosting sales of a very good game!

[Geofa 108]

How come fs1 in 1981 had a ww1 dogfight included?That would kinda go against the FS always being a civilian flight sim?But maybe I go back further?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest S77th-GOYA]

>shoot-em-up arcade type game such as Aces High or even Crimson>Skies.Whoops. I meant Ace Combat, not Aces High.