28 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

I'm not sure I could disagree with that statement more.

Whatever could be the point of modeling a combat system in a simulator that doesn’t support combat?

Tomcat, in particular, is a stupendous aviation experience even without the AWG-9/ phoenix/sparrow/sidewinder 

10 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Whatever could be the point of modeling a combat system in a simulator that doesn’t support combat?

Tomcat, in particular, is a stupendous aviation experience even without the AWG-9/ phoenix/sparrow/sidewinder 

Because the plane was built around that radar and there's a seat in the plane dedicated to operating it. Not modelling that would make the plane deeply disappointing to me.

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by Matchstick

Do we have an actual list of planned features? They said they want to model systems as close as possible but if it's for NAV1&2, COMM 1&2 and such, I'm not sure it's going to be worth it. Would be nice to have something a bit more special.

DCS Heatblur Tomcat: like DCDesigns, but prettier! might not be a good-enough selling point...

 

 

1 hour ago, Daube said:

Do we have an actual list of planned features? They said they want to model systems as close as possible but if it's for NAV1&2, COMM 1&2 and such, I'm not sure it's going to be worth it. Would be nice to have something a bit more special.

DCS Heatblur Tomcat: like DCDesigns, but prettier! might not be a good-enough selling point...

 

 

I know they've said it will simulate INS

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

6 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Because the plane was built around that radar and there's a seat in the plane dedicated to operating it. Not modelling that would make the plane deeply disappointing to me.

So if you got the Golden Ticket for an IRL ride in an F/A-18E, would you be "deeply disappointed" and turn it down because you couldn't ride it during a combat mission?

I'm simply overjoyed that the creators of one of the penultimate quality flight sim addons ever created - for ANY sim - are bringing it to MSFS.

And I don't need ANY "pew pew" to enjoy the unadulterated thrill of vPiloting one of the highest performance and most aerodynamically complex aircraft to EVER take flight.

 

6 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Because the plane was built around that radar and there's a seat in the plane dedicated to operating it. Not modelling that would make the plane deeply disappointing to me.

Thankfully for me, I will be in the front seat …. but I understand your passion for the complete package. Perhaps in a later version, beyond the release candidate, radar modelling will be implemented? 

Why don't some DCS folks simply grasp, that maybe and just maybe....everyone doesn't need "lock on!! I'm switching to guns pew pew" in a civilian sim with military aircraft for enjoyment.

I keep seeing posts everywhere with the " Well what are you all gonna do just fly from point a to point b to look cool in a fighter jet?".

Sooo flying in formation over an entire modeled fully detailed planet earth in billion dollar fighter jets while in VR isn't enough to do outside of combat in MSFS?

How many DCS payware scenery modules do you need to sew together to achieve what MSFS can do natively and actually look this freakin beautiful while doing so?🙃🤣

 

4 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

So if you got the Golden Ticket for an IRL ride in an F/A-18E, would you be "deeply disappointed" and turn it down because you couldn't ride it during a combat mission?

I'm simply overjoyed that the creators of one of the penultimate quality flight sim addons ever created - for ANY sim - are bringing it to MSFS.

And I don't need ANY "pew pew" to enjoy the unadulterated thrill of vPiloting one of the highest performance and most aerodynamically complex aircraft to EVER take flight.

 

I'm afraid I have zero idea why your are trying to draw an analogy between the passive experience of flying in a plane and me wanting proper systems modelling.

And as for the second point, without that systems modelling it's NOT the same plane, not even close (even allowing for the lack of weapons and damage modelling which).

And finally, sensor and weapons are related but different and the restrictions on when weapons are used do not apply to using radar etc.

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by Matchstick

1 hour ago, blueshark747 said:

Why don't some DCS folks simply grasp, that maybe and just maybe....everyone doesn't need "lock on!! I'm switching to guns pew pew" in a civilian sim with military aircraft for enjoyment.

I keep seeing posts everywhere with the " Well what are you all gonna do just fly from point a to point b to look cool in a fighter jet?".

Sooo flying in formation over an entire modeled fully detailed planet earth in billion dollar fighter jets while in VR isn't enough to do outside of combat in MSFS?

How many DCS payware scenery modules do you need to sew together to achieve what MSFS can do natively and actually look this freakin beautiful while doing so?🙃🤣

 

I agree it's great to be able to flying anywhere but for a plane where the systems are such a defining aspect, I'm not interested in paying for a version which isn't going to do those systems justice.

Its the same way that I'm not interested, say, in for a Harrier that dIdn't model thrust vectoring properly.

And here was I thinking AVSim was where the adults hung out.

 

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by Matchstick

they're saying the non-combat systems will be high fidelity. 

3 hours ago, Matchstick said:

I'm afraid I have zero idea why your are trying to draw an analogy between the passive experience of flying in a plane and me wanting proper systems modelling.

And as for the second point, without that systems modelling it's NOT the same plane, not even close (even allowing for the lack of weapons and damage modelling which).

And finally, sensor and weapons are related but different and the restrictions on when weapons are used do not apply to using radar etc.

Analogies are good for perspective, IMHO.

I'd rather have HB/IFT spend time coding things that will enhance the experience within the bounds of the sims limitations.

Like I said, the flight model of a swing wing, taileron, supersonic aircraft with a Lifting Body, 5-stage afterburners and asymetric thrust is gonna be hard enough...

Add in the challenges with ground dynamics & carrier ops...

Add in the Nav & Comms systems which would be useful

and perhaps some systems failures or even the dreaded Flat Spin, and it's a tremendous amount of work to "fully" model just the intricacies of the factors that do actually affect the in-sim experience.

To attempt some hack-y radar intercept functionality in a sim that's expressly against that type of activity would be a questionable use of dev hours.

And I doubt this add-on will MSRP at $80 as the DCSW version does. Maybe $40 or $50 (which would be much higher than IFT usually charges)...

How much superfluous coding should we expect just in a sense of "completeness"? Isn't that firmly on the path of throwing the baby out with the bathwater...?

I don't consider delivering accurate systems modelling in a high end simulation of a combat jet to be superfluous, I consider it a necessity.

Ultimately I don't realistically see how  HB/IFE can delivery that in MSFS leading to something pretty but hollow.

Edited November 21, 20232 yr by Matchstick

Interesting comparisons, but I don't see the issue. If the weapons system is important to you, fly the plane in DCS. If not, enjoy it in MSFS after it is available.

Aspects of this thread remind me of a famous quote!

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"

Blue skies to all!