11 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

He reminds me of Tony Blair. 

Yes Such a warm man. 

I am convinced of his sympathy. A little less for the rest.

For MSFS2024, I'm not asking for much, I just want to feel the sensation of having something at the end of my joystick with a more realistic representation of the world as a whole.

On 9/23/2023 at 1:55 AM, Mike S KPDX said:

not sure what I am missing here, there is no link on their page to 'watch the interview below'.... ?

That happens if you have an adblocker active, I'm afraid.

Edited September 23, 20232 yr by Abriael

22 hours ago, Krakin said:

So no more hurricanes and inclement weather, then? Time to crack down on all that insensitive storm chasing?

I'm not a fan of the lack of weapons (albeit I understand the reason), but i'm amazed that some don't seem to understand the difference between natural disasters, and technology intentionally created to kill people. 

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

I'm not a fan of the lack of weapons (albeit I understand the reason), but i'm amazed that some don't seem to understand the difference between natural disasters, and technology intentionally created to kill people. 

One could argue the ‘natural disasters’ are created by human technology. 
 

Anyways, they’re both killing people, so why anyone would want to simulate that I don’t know. To each their own I suppose. 

Edited September 23, 20232 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

37 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

One could argue the ‘natural disasters’ are created by human technology. 
 

Anyways, they’re both killing people, so why anyone would want to simulate that I don’t know. To each their own I suppose. 

The relationship between natural disasters and technology is much more indirect and especially, infinitely less intentional. 

On top of that, and I'm amazed I have to actually say this, by firing a missile, you aim to kill someone.

By flying over a wildfire to drop thousands of gallions of water, the intention is to *save* lives, and nature. 

Again, personally I think all aspects of aviation should be celebrated, so I'm not happy with the exclusion of weapons, but between this and hunting for fictional gotchas in ridiculous comparisons between bombs and disasters of natural cause, there's an abyss.  

Edited September 23, 20232 yr by Abriael

19 minutes ago, Abriael said:

On top of that, and I'm amazed I have to actually say this, by firing a missile, you aim to kill someone.

Not if you’re Kim Jong Un 😁

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

One could argue the ‘natural disasters’ are created by human technology. 
 

Anyways, they’re both killing people, so why anyone would want to simulate that I don’t know. To each their own I suppose. 

One is simulating rescuing people, the other killing people. Is it just me or is this an incredibly daft conversation😅?

So should the sim not simulator hurricanes and tornadoes either?

Edited September 24, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

15 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

So should the sim not simulator hurricanes and tornadoes either?

Right. Heavy rain often causes landslides here in Japan, do they want that taken out too?

10 hours ago, scotchegg said:

One is simulating rescuing people, the other killing people. Is it just me or is this an incredibly daft conversation😅?

Deleted. Off to fly MSFS. 

Edited September 24, 20232 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

Just now, Ianrivaldosmith said:

  Off to fly MSFS. 

a very reasonable conclusion to a bizarre series of posts if you ask me

This is a straw man argument and completely missing the point from my perspective. 

I just want the aircraft to look as realistic as they can by showing the cannons on a V series Spitfire, the machine guns in the tail turret of a WW2 bomber, or a couple of wingtip Sidewinders on an F-16. 

I don't want to actually fire them in the sim and bring down airliners etc. 
That definitely would not be good to have in the sim, so whoever who came up with that extrapolation from just wanting the aircraft to look realistic? 

If Microsoft really wanted to steer clear of this, then don't bring out an A-10 with a stupid sensor in the nose instead of the GAU-8/A, and just stick to civilian stuff.

The complete fallacy of this argument is that there are plenty of military aircraft bought outside of the marketplace that can have the weapons loadouts to match reality, even for training flights, and nobody is shooting down any airliners for heavens sake.

Woke is actually good - caring for people, but it is this 'over-wokeism' that is becoming ridiculous and preaching intolerance.  Whatever next with these extrapolations?  Ban airliners from the sim as their CO2 emissions are 'destroying' the planet?

Edited September 24, 20232 yr by bobcat999

On 9/22/2023 at 3:14 AM, Dominique_K said:

historical weather is an improprer term IMO

To use his term, perhaps offset/delayed weather 

4 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

This is a straw man argument and completely missing the point from my perspective. 

I just want the aircraft to look as realistic  

 

 

Not only a question of look, the external heavy loadouts have some sense for their impact on the aerodynamics of an aircraft. Interesting to take off with and without. But in any case  the user should not be able to  activate the loads except for jettisoning them.. It is not a ideological question (I am not exactly a pacifist 😁) but a practical  one. A true simulation of A2G or A2A weaponry implies a substantial effort of programming detrimental to other more urgent matters. 

And the simulations of a bomb drop made by some 3PD (Milviz for instance) is ludicrous. This sim is a civil one. And should stay this way. 

This does not preclude some mil ops BTW : urgent non lethal interception of a civill airliner having a worrying trajectory, short (sarajevo) landing of heavy lifters etc.  

4 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

 If Microsoft really wanted to steer clear of this, then don't bring out an A-10 with a stupid sensor in the nose instead of the GAU-8/A, and just stick to civilian stuff.

 

This A-10 is completely hypocritical. They say something and do otherwise. Color me surprised. Or not.

4 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

 Woke is actually good 

I beg to differ for once, an abomination even in its mildest form 😄 !

7 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Woke is actually good - caring for people, but it is this 'over-wokeism' that is becoming ridiculous and preaching intolerance.  Whatever next with these extrapolations?  Ban airliners from the sim as their CO2 emissions are 'destroying' the planet?

??? This sentence makes no sense.

Adding weapons, even unusable ones, would raise the game's rating. Even the F-18 in FSX Acceleration didn't have visible weapons.

'Wokeness' has nothing to do with it.

Edited September 24, 20232 yr by Tuskin38