1 hour ago, eslader said:

When you're at 15,000 feet trying not to get shot down, you don't really notice the scenery beyond "the ground's that way, don't hit it."

 

 

You know some people like to fly helicopter or Tornado 😉

Also there is low level game even with F-16/18 and etc

 

2 hours ago, eslader said:

For me, it's not a moral issue. It's a live player issue. It's already annoying enough seeing dopes spawn on the runway at St. Barts in a 747. Now we're talking about giving them missiles? It'll be nothing but explosions at any popular "hangout" area, which will look stupid and probably not exactly do wonders for framerates either.

Just like you can get rid of the online players doing non-sense in front of you, there would be a way to disable the "weapons" effects simply by switching off an option in your sim. And that would be only for those who actually bought the weapon extension. So what's the problem exactly ?

2 hours ago, eslader said:

DCS is vastly superior for military-style flying, and the base sim is free. Grab an F18 and/or an F16 during one of their 50% off sales and you'll have a fighter sim that MSFS simply can't touch. I know, you can't fly all over the world in DCS but, you know what? When you're at 15,000 feet trying not to get shot down, you don't really notice the scenery beyond "the ground's that way, don't hit it."

Given there's no way MSFS will ever replicate what DCS can already do, I don't see the obnoxiosity that would result from live weapons as being worth the degraded fun we'd have shooting them.

It's a valid point of view, however nobody knows what would be or wouldn't be possible to implement in MSFS provided Asobo does a little work on the necessary APIs. We saw what VRS could do by 'hacking' the FSX memory. If a weapon extension would be considered by Asobo, then the necessary APIs would probably be considered too. The rest is a matter of personal interest. Fact is, my Mig21 in MSFS has 100x more flying hours than my Mig21 in DCS (which is... uninstalled since a few weeks, in fact). Yes, ground is down there, as you said. Let's not hit it, as you said. That flight experience is not really what I'm looking for. I'll be in that mindset once DCS gets a dynamic campaign, like Falcon4 or EF2000. In the meanwhile, it's useless.

 

4 hours ago, Daube said:

Just like you can get rid of the online players doing non-sense in front of you, there would be a way to disable the "weapons" effects simply by switching off an option in your sim. And that would be only for those who actually bought the weapon extension. So what's the problem exactly ?

It's a valid point of view, however nobody knows what would be or wouldn't be possible to implement in MSFS provided Asobo does a little work on the necessary APIs. We saw what VRS could do by 'hacking' the FSX memory. If a weapon extension would be considered by Asobo, then the necessary APIs would probably be considered too. The rest is a matter of personal interest. Fact is, my Mig21 in MSFS has 100x more flying hours than my Mig21 in DCS (which is... uninstalled since a few weeks, in fact). Yes, ground is down there, as you said. Let's not hit it, as you said. That flight experience is not really what I'm looking for. I'll be in that mindset once DCS gets a dynamic campaign, like Falcon4 or EF2000. In the meanwhile, it's useless.

 

OOT, would you recommend the Mig 21 btw? And do they provide "English" cockpit? Thanks

Edited February 6, 20242 yr by History

The "labels" when hovering the mouse over the switches are in English.

And yes, I recommend it, I really love that plane so much, it's possibly the most interesting and challenging military jet in my hangar so far. The flight model is quite close to the one in DCS, at least when it comes to how difficult approach and landing is. The speed gauge in km/h is quite confusing at first, and the elevator trim is vital. I'd recommend you to wait for the soon-to-come update though. The author has been busy with the F-111 recently, and that one still has major issues.

 

PS: I'm talking about the Mig21 for MSFS of course, not the one in DCS. Well, that one is very good too, of course.

Edited February 6, 20242 yr by Daube

15 minutes ago, Daube said:

The "labels" when hovering the mouse over the switches are in English.

And yes, I recommend it, I really love that plane so much, it's possibly the most interesting and challenging military jet in my hangar so far. The flight model is quite close to the one in DCS, at least when it comes to how difficult approach and landing is. The speed gauge in km/h is quite confusing at first, and the elevator trim is vital. I'd recommend you to wait for the soon-to-come update though. The author has been busy with the F-111 recently, and that one still has major issues.

 

PS: I'm talking about the Mig21 for MSFS of course, not the one in DCS. Well, that one is very good too, of course.

Yes, the Mig 21 for MSFS. Thank you 

7 hours ago, Daube said:

If a weapon extension would be considered by Asobo

Not going to happen.

https://www.esrb.org/ratings/36840/microsoft-flight-simulator/

Without going down the rabbit hole of aircraft inaccuracies with removed weapons, etc. Having an E for Everyone rating is what was sought by Asobo/MS, it has been granted for MSFS, and that's how it's going to remain.

 

Quote

About the ESRB 

Our primary mission is to help parents make informed decisions about the video games and apps their children play. Our Advertising Review Council actively enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines, and our Privacy Certified program helps ensure responsible web and mobile privacy practices.

 

An optional extension is going to change the global rating of the game ?

Or is it only the extension that will get a "not for your child" rating ?

 

8 hours ago, Daube said:

An optional extension is going to change the global rating of the game ?

Or is it only the extension that will get a "not for your child" rating ?

 

Absolutely, Remember the Hot Coffee "scandal" way back when for one of the Grand Theft Autos? There was a sex scene that had been cut from the game, that you had to hack the game in order to get it to play, so assuming no one would even find it they didn't bother stripping the code from the final release. They got in no end of hot water over it even though it wasn't just optional, it was essentially locked away in a bank vault that you had to break into in order to choose the option.

 

3 hours ago, eslader said:

Absolutely, Remember the Hot Coffee "scandal" way back when for one of the Grand Theft Autos? There was a sex scene that had been cut from the game, that you had to hack the game in order to get it to play, so assuming no one would even find it they didn't bother stripping the code from the final release. They got in no end of hot water over it even though it wasn't just optional, it was essentially locked away in a bank vault that you had to break into in order to choose the option.

Hot Coffee wasn't able to be access in normal gameplay, but the fact you could use GameShark or Action Replay does make a difference. You're not gonna find anything spicy if you hacked Mario Kart Double Dash even if you try, where as someone underage could accidently find something they're not supposed in the case of GTA3. I agree that it's kind of a dumb decision, it's not anymore graphic than anything else in GTA, probably a little bit tame compared to everything else honestly.  But the logic behind it actually is a little more reasonable than you're giving it credit for, and I'd actually be more inclined to agree with the ESRB on their decision if it was a game which wasn't already rated 17+.

Edited February 7, 20242 yr by Jnin
further clarification

5 hours ago, eslader said:

Absolutely, Remember the Hot Coffee "scandal" way back when for one of the Grand Theft Autos? There was a sex scene that had been cut from the game, that you had to hack the game in order to get it to play, so assuming no one would even find it they didn't bother stripping the code from the final release. They got in no end of hot water over it even though it wasn't just optional, it was essentially locked away in a bank vault that you had to break into in order to choose the option.

 

I'm not sure it's a similar example.

I'd rather rely on the military aircraft currently released on the marketplace without weapons, and that can display weapons once downloading and installing a dedicated addon. Plus the fact that these same addons are sold directly with visible weapons on third party shops, without altering the original "rated for everyone" rating of MSFS. So why would it be different with an addon that would bring functional weapons ?

24 minutes ago, Daube said:

So why would it be different with an addon that would bring functional weapons ?

You're mixing different points.

Your earlier post asked whether Asobo would consider making or facilitating a weapons extension—the answer is no. The base game and Marketplace is directly under Asobo/MS control, therefore they are responsible for the content that appears there. To retain the current PEGI game rating, weapons/'violence' is not permitted—full stop.

Third parties selling content displaying weaponry on store fronts away from the Marketplace is a grey area. That is outside Asobo/MS direct control and on its own not necessarily worthy of complaint.

However, if a developer were to create an add-on that showed the effects of air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles, Asobo/MS would be tasked with closing that down as they are responsible for providing the safe non-violent environment the current game rating demands.

 

The other big point not yet mentioned is simple perception. The idea of making it capable for aircraft to be blown out of the sky or be crashed into buildings and bridges in a popular civilian flight title would create public outcry. We came close to losing flight simulation as a genre some 20 years ago.

For the sake of everything good that MSFS2020 brought back to our hobby, keep civilian flight and combat flight separate.

3 hours ago, F737MAX said:

For the sake of everything good that MSFS2020 brought back to our hobby, keep civilian flight and combat flight separate.

Couldn't agree more.👍

6 hours ago, F737MAX said:

You're mixing different points.

Your earlier post asked whether Asobo would consider making or facilitating a weapons extension—the answer is no. The base game and Marketplace is directly under Asobo/MS control, therefore they are responsible for the content that appears there. To retain the current PEGI game rating, weapons/'violence' is not permitted—full stop.

That Asobo cannot provide military content or feature is clear.

That they cannot create specific APIs that could be used by third parties, is not so clear at all.

Quote

Third parties selling content displaying weaponry on store fronts away from the Marketplace is a grey area. That is outside Asobo/MS direct control and on its own not necessarily worthy of complaint.

However, if a developer were to create an add-on that showed the effects of air-to-air or surface-to-air missiles, Asobo/MS would be tasked with closing that down as they are responsible for providing the safe non-violent environment the current game rating demands.

VRS did just that with FSX and FSX is still rated "E". As long as Asobo/MS do not create the military content by themselves, the original sim content rating won't be modified. The "grey area" you just mentioned is the complete proof. The availability of visual weapons on third party addons is prohibited on the internal store but not on external ones. That means a military extension coming from an external party won't have any impact on the rating of the vanilla game itself.

Quote

The other big point not yet mentioned is simple perception. The idea of making it capable for aircraft to be blown out of the sky or be crashed into buildings and bridges in a popular civilian flight title would create public outcry. We came close to losing flight simulation as a genre some 20 years ago.

What are you talking about ?

Quote

For the sake of everything good that MSFS2020 brought back to our hobby, keep civilian flight and combat flight separate.

For the sake of flight simulation, let's keep this conversation on facts and not feelings.

Edited February 7, 20242 yr by Daube

Another possibility would be to simply make two editions of MSFS. One purely civilian, rated "E", and another one will full simulation features, rated "whatever MS won't care anyways because they already have that other one which is rated "E"".

Think of it as a Combat Flight Simulator 4, excepted it's based on exactly the same sim content, servers etc... but simply with a few additional features activated. This would prevent the necessity for double maintenance for Asobo, for example, as any fix for a sim would automatically become available for the other one as well (provided it's not a military feature, which would be valid only for one of them).

6 minutes ago, Daube said:

Another possibility would be to simply make two editions of MSFS. One purely civilian, rated "E", and another one [...] Think of it as a Combat Flight Simulator 4,

Correct. That's the only solution to your request/musings on this topic.

There were many reasons why Flight Sim and Combat Flight Sim were kept as separate titles. None of those reasons have changed.