Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest grapesh

Are Bombs & Guns OK in FSX?

Recommended Posts

Now that my review for the RAZBAM Intruder is posted, I can bring up a question of the forum that's been on my mind for a long time. Do you want to see bombs and guns portrayed in Flight Simulator? Do you want to be able to use your aircraft to blow stuff up?Almost as long as the history of flight, there has also been the weaponization of flight. Being in the air of any sustained period of time is a unique status, and gives an individual a strong tactical advantage over those on the ground. As aircraft were being built and improved, people were coming up with ways to strap guns and bombs on them to rain down death and destruction from above. Being true to the history of flight should mean undertstanding that even the most beautiful aircraft could be an instrument of warfare. On the other hand, MSFS has nearly always removed weapons capabilities from their default aircraft. Recently, we have had the ability to bomb with bags of flour, re-working "DFA" to mean "Drop Flour from Above". The design decision was to take guns and bombs away from gamers in this sim.Why would you want guns and bombs in the first place? The vast majority of targets in FSX are civilian and unarmed. Even the few military targets we have will never shoot back. Although there is military, there are no wars in the FSX world. You can land Air Force One in Kandahar or Baghdad, and nobody will shoot at it. Reviewing the RAZBAM Intruder, I was genuinely creeped-out at the prospect of bombing unarmed, non-hostile civilian targets. Still, even if you are against guns and bombs in MSFS, there's little to stop you from using the aircraft itself as a weapon. We recall that Microsoft quickly issued a patch that removed the twin towers of the doomed World Trade Center in New York after the 9/11 incident. I imagine that most sim pilots are eager to record as many landings as take-offs, so that suicide attacks in airplanes are not normal behaviours.FSX does not present a gaming world where violent action is acceptable. While destruction can happen, usually it ruins the experience.Okay, so that's how I see the "dove" side of the equation. The "hawk" in me marvelled at the clever way bombs are implemented in the RAZBAM Intruder. I really wish that the DIANE target computer had more function so that I could do realistic automated A-6 bomb runs. I also like flight combat sims, and I think it's a shame that the greatest titles like "B-17", "Gunship!", "Falcon", and so on (mostly stuff from MicroProse and Spectrum Holobyte/Sphere) won't be updated as boxed games for modern computers. I still take IL-2 out for a spin once in a while, and I've found that LOMAC runs superbly on an FSX-rated system. What I would really like to see is a return of a "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" type of game, that has an FSX-style hangar of aircraft to choose from, and then open-ended free-flight with combat as well as a mission generator. I don't think I ever shot Gen. Yeager down when the game was set to his difficulty level, least of all in one of those "Phantom vs. Mustang" duels.That, and I would like to see historical flight sims: a re-make of "Flight Of The Intruder" with Viet Nam-era carrier ops and real multi-squadron alpha strikes, or a decent WW I campaign, or more WWII-based sims: the Battle Of Britain, the war in the Pacific, etc.I have no problem playing combat flight sims. I do have some qualms about re-working FSX into a combat sim, unless it can be done as something like Combat Flight Simulator but without the bugs.I am interested in hearing what everyone else thinks along the lines of this topic. I am not interested in opinions that would suggest that any one user is wrong because of their view, i.e. "you suxxorz cuz you don't like bomz", although corrections on facts are acceptable, i.e. that Falcon has been patched and tweaked to become a more modern game. Should bombs and guns be encouraged in FSX?Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

It's a civilian flight sim and I'd like to see it stay that way. ACES has done a combat game before and I hope that they'll do it again. Having said that, the likelihood of ESP behind harnessed for military/police operations is high - so expect to see violence creep into the title. The mission system can be used for peace and war. The flour-bomb dropping can be coupled with effects for explosions and the models in flightsim are able to portray damage.Invariably, those who use and enjoy military aircraft in flight simulator are going to want to see their stores go "bang." The desire is there, but I personally like MSFS as a civilian flight simulator. If you take the total number of flight-oriented entertainment/game/sim titles created in the last 20 years, you'll find that over 90% of them are devoted to simulating flight as it pertains to warfare; why not keep at least one top-quality sim violence-free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jeff. I really enjoy combat flight sims, but, I like MSFS for the recreation of GA and commercial flight. I also think that to make a "hybrid" military-civil simulator, quality would have to be affected somewhere in there. You might lose some features of either-or to have both. I like as much realism as I can get, and despite the fact that I'm not a r/w pilot, I enjoy full systems simulation. I'd hate to lose that just to be able to blow something up. That being said, I really liked Jane's USAF. That was a fun combat sim.Thank you,KailFlightSimmer since 1987C2D E6850 3.0GHz 1333FSBXFX Nforce 680i LT SLI2x XFX 8800GT 512MB SLI'd4GB Crucial Ballistix PC6400 800MHzCreative SB Audigy2 ZSUltra Xfinity 600W SLI PSUSeagate 320GB 7200RPM 16MB SATA-3GB/S HDWindows XP SP2 / FSX SP2 / FS9 SP1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I would like that war and bombs stay out of FS! A good thing with this community is that we manage to keep religion and politics out of the discussions. Let it stay this way.Peace to all on earth :-wave Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NUKE'EM! :-lol I dont think it comes down to any one decision, opinion or consensus of a groupIf someone wants to play dive bomb in the sim and they can make that work.. so be it, who am I to tell anyone what to do with their sim purchase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>NUKE'EM!There we go again, Nick. I can here the southern accent when reading your post. Reminds me of the movie Dr Strangelove and the scene where the bomber pilot and cowboy rides the falling bomb while swinging his hat.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>FSX does not present a gaming world where violent action is>acceptable. While destruction can happen, usually it ruins>the experience.That is totally subjective based on the user and I actually feel that is what is lacking in FS, a sense that you could be harmed. I know every time I go up for real I know in the back of my mind it could be the last time. We spend so much money on addons to help convince up that it is as realistic as possible, yet we refuse to have it mimic reality, LOL.I love your post Jeff, it's very well thought out, but I really have never understood this arguement, as long as you have the option, what difference would it make as long as "you" choose not to use it that way?? I don't fly airliners, doesn't mean I don't want them in my sim.A big part of commercial flying for real is having to do so in adverse conditions, can't think of anything more adverse that piloting into a hot combat zone.I view (and use) FS as a virtual world, you can fly in it, drive a car in it, pilot a ship in it, so why not fire a weapon in it? If a virtual pilot has the desire to 'blow up unarmed civilians" he'll do that, it doesn't matter what platform he uses, he still has that desire.I vote YES for just the option from MS for 3PD's to be able to easily develop damage profiles, then it is totally up to the user if they want it in their sim.Regards, MichaelKDFW

Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe nForce4 SLI-x16 / AMD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If someone wants to play dive bomb in the sim and they can>make that work.. so be it, who am I to tell anyone what to do>with their sim purchase? But if somebody made a mission and a scenery with animations like:"Mission 1: Napalm bomb Vietnamese villages" - see the burning and screaming children run down the road!Or why not "al-Qaida Revenge: Spread the sarin over Satans country"Lets keep wars and bombs out of FS! The possibility to add mission and scenery add ons in FS might be a can of worms for this community.Peace to all on earth :-wave Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Should bombs and guns be encouraged in FSX?>I don't see why not.Couldn't SimConnect be used to control bombs, A2A and SAMs? Maybe it could also control enemy planes and your wingmen too?Hmmm, now there's an idea, I might give it a try! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is one that has had some feedback from Aces and for that matter simmers who are military buffs , Aces will not be adding droppable payloads but Production Houses are offering the product and i am engaged in producing scenery that does explode and shoot back.Going a step further i produced a Lancaster MKIII and scenery elements that are intended to recreate the Dambusters Missions and the Tallboys for use on Sub Pens , combine this with animated effects that can be aimed and FlightSim's Mission System can reproduce training exercises of many descriptions as time goes by , in piecemeal the 3PD's are going to militarize FS for those who want it by way of addons .There are even more surprises in store as extensions of trends to make a given product more attractive and feature laden drive the "Arms Race".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"2"Who says its a "civilian only" simulator, anyway? With few exceptions, FS will simulate nearly any type of flight imaginable, and that includes military-type flight.I have no desire to fly a Trike around at 500ft, or to a take a Cessna out for a short cross-country. Does that mean the ability should be removed from the simulator? No.If you don't want to drop bombs, you don't have to. Why must those who object to weapons impose their will on everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But if somebody made a mission and a scenery with animations>like:>"Mission 1: Napalm bomb Vietnamese villages" - see the burning>and screaming children run down the road!>Or why not "al-Qaida Revenge: Spread the sarin over Satans>country">>Lets keep wars and bombs out of FS! The possibility to add>mission and scenery add ons in FS might be a can of worms for>this community.>>Peace to all on earth :-wave >>Ulf B>Then it would be an unpopular add-on, only a few people would ever use it, and its unpopularity would discourage further ditribution of similar content. The situation would sort itself out without your misguided attempts to impose your will on others.And why the automatic assumption that the first impulse would be to nape innocent civilians? Why such a warped view? You're clearly biased and irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm for bombs and guns but not in MSFS. Keep it separate from the combat sims.Respectfully,Jim Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>If you don't want to drop bombs, you don't have to. Why must>those who object to weapons impose their will on everyone>else?Not much logic in that statement. Could easily be turn around with a twist: Why must those who want to kill other people impose their will on everyone else?To kill another human must be the ultimate way to impose your will to another human. Making use of weapons in FS or other war game must give the gamer the feeling of being empowered and able to impose their will on everyone else?But I must admit that dropping a bomb on the control tower wouldn't feel that bad after receiving your third go around.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And why the automatic assumption that the first impulse would>be to nape innocent civilians? Why such a warped view? A warped idea when viewing the documentaries from the "real as it gets" wars. Fire has allways been popular to use against other people during wars. Civilians have often been casualties in wars. I could mentions some war scenes from the past. The firestorm after the bombing of Dresden. Napalm bombing of Vietnamese villages. Just follow this link to see what I mean:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAcJust tell me if you want some more real as it gets stuff! I don't fancy the idea to glorify a nasty business like war.Ulf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites