Are Bombs & Guns OK in FSX?

[Guest UlfB]

>>This is not about who's wrong or who's right. >>>Ulf B>>Yet every example you cite is a perceived injustice committed>by the US.>>You know, wars have been fought since the beginning of>recorded history. The US is only 232 years old. You can't>blame the US for everything, despite the recent popularity of>the act.Oh for crying out loud. Don't we all know all too well about Gulag, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Birkenau, The World Trade Center Attack. The Japanese underground train sarin attack.What part in my statement "This is not about who's wrong or who's right." is unclear?The reason that I choose the Vietnamese example was that you asked me "And why the automatic assumption that the first impulse would be to nape innocent civilians? Why such a warped view?".And the answer is that the photo of the young naped vietnamese girl is etched in my mind forever. I have one child and two grand children. And I wish that nobody will ever nape them. I don't want no russians, no vietnamese, no americans, no nobody to nape my child or my grand children. That's what the warped view came from. OK?I was going to give the attack on WTC as the second example. 2 986 was killed in the attacks that day. And this is a big disaster for the US. And the number of people killed in a bombraid over Dresden came to my mind. It wasn't really intentional to point a finger at US. And as I said - we all know all to well about the #####, communists doings during the WWII and there after.Sorry, I have to end the discussion for know. Time to go to bed.See you all tomorrow :-beerchug Ulf B

[tf51d 284]

If Aces/MS intended the MSFS to have bombs they would have included them. It's only with the FSX mission system they included the ability to bomb things to appeal more to the gamer market, and even then limited it to flour bombs. FS from it's inception back when it was for APPLE II computers was always meant to be a GA simulator.

[Mike T 208]

Jeff:Why not have bombs and machines of war in FSX? There are plenty of War Simulators of varying types and complexities, from first person shooters, that portray military operations to combat flight simulators, navy simulators and land warfare simulators. FSX is a civilian flight simulator by product focus only, however, if the ability to portray combat operations exists then great, why should its capabilities be censored.If one is against the tools of war, then one should simply not use them when such products become available. How one utilizes FS is solely up to the user and not up to the censorship of those who feel that just because they feel a certain way about something it must be that way for everyone.This argument is same as those put forth by the moral majority that wants censorship for everything and blames violence in cartoons for their children running amok. As it were, Europe has no problem with nudity, but the United States teeters (no pun intended) on the edge of social implosion just because Janet Jackson shows a nipple on a Sunday afternoon! Nudity has yet to turn Europe into a continent of perverts just like violence on TV has yet to turn the world into anarchy. Therefore having bombs in FS is not going to cause the world to spontaneously combust.If combat simulation is within the capabilities of FSX, I'm behind it 100%...those who do not wish to use it in such a way, simply don't. Disclaimer: I am admittedly am biased, as a Captain in the US Army and a veteran of both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. There are a heck of a lot of people fighting and dying so that YOU can freely choose. I feel that most people demand peace and the freedom to hug trees while singing kum-bye-yah.... just as long as someone ELSE fights for it. Regards,Mike T.

[Mike T 208]

Ulf:"And I wish that nobody will ever nape them. I don't want no russians, no vietnamese, no americans, no nobody to nape my child or my grand children. That's what the warped view came from. OK?"That's why soldiers are dying so that noone will nape your children. The wars and the warriors you distain so much are the ones who have made, and continue to make, it possible for your children to sleep soundly at night and for YOU to have the ability to express your opinions as you see fit. On behalf of those of the warriors who stand the line so that you and your children can enjoy those freedoms and that safety...a simple THANK YOU will do.Remember, even ANGELS in heaven are prepared for vigorous battle against evil at a moment's notice (if one is inclined to believe in such things). Word has it that the Arch-Angel Michael can open a can of whoop-@$$ on the bad guys. So, it would appear that even GOD has no problem laying waste to the bad guys every now and then!HOOOOAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!Mike T.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

You act as though FSX and reality are inseparable.My infant daughter has no bearing on my desire to fly combat aircraft in flight simulator. Nothing I do in a simulator can possibly have any effect on the real world.So why do you keep comparing a simulator to real-life? The whole purpose of simulators is to be able to experiment, experience, and perform actions that you can't do in real life.

[ZXR-7R 8]

Personally, I could live with or live without guns in FS. If I want a good 'ol fashion dogfight,I'll dive into my IL-2 for my air-2-air battles. No biggie. And ULF, take a breather man. The op was asking for an opinion,which should have taken but 2 sentences at the very most, not a politically-induced rant that lasts the whole topic. Chill out brother.-Tim

[MatthewS 761]

>Disclaimer: I am admittedly am biased, as a Captain in the US>Army and a veteran of both Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. >There are a heck of a lot of people fighting and dying so that>YOU can freely choose. I feel that most people demand peace>and the freedom to hug trees while singing kum-bye-yah....>just as long as someone ELSE fights for it. >Exactly! And thank you!

[Guest George M]

>Should bombs and guns be encouraged in FSX?Since MS has said that FSX is frozen, bombs or guns would have to come from 3PDs or an additional expansion pack. I personally see no problem at all with that. If the market's there, develop for it. I think the RAZBAM Intruder sounds like fun.My guess is that folks worried that the core Flight Simulator product may slide down the slippery slope of violence in the future don't have to worry. I'd bet the "E" ESRB rating is too important to MS for them add combat to the core product. If a future Combat Simulator is implemented as an expansion pack, so be it. Folks that don't want it can ignore it.

[Guest JIMJAM]

Back to the topic.1/2 of my planes are military cause thats my thing.Yours may be the Airbus or Piper Cub.I personally had over 50+ in fs9 and was a mix of all types including helis.That said, NO, I do not want Aces to try and design a "one size fits all" sim.I really do not want them to ADD anything but fix whats there.Its bloated enough and I see every new addition as a new source of problems and perfomance loss.They can however, make it POSSIBLE for addon makers to do specific things opening the door for new possibilities.I does not bother me at all that I cannot drop a bomb and destroy a bridge or strafe and sink a boat.Well ok it does just a little:-hah If MS wants to do a combat sim, Heck yeah I will be first in line to buy it.What I do not want however is a sim that tries to do everything ok but nothing in specific great.Give the tools and knowledge to the addon guys and let them do what they do best.

[jwenham 1]

>>FS stands for FLIGHT SIMULATOR. >>What does that have to do with anything? >The OP asked what we thought and I did that. It just seems to me that having bombs and guns would be better suited in a combat simulator which I said I was all for. That way the different sims would get the development attention they deserve to make them all they could be. I think adding more features as such would hurt the future areas we all want improved on in the current sim.

[Ramasurinen 0]

I always find it interesting when this topic gets brought up, always an eye opener to see peoples views on it.I think the FS world with all of its detail could provide the base for the ultimate air combat sim and I'd welcome that for sure, especially if it was as open to development as FSX is. I don't particularly care if that functionality gets bundled into FS11 or the version after, or comes in the form of a standalone sim based on the same engine and terrain.As for the topic of war in the sim in general, it's just a game we're talking about here, and on a scale of immersion even the most visceral air combat sim falls far behind the average first person shooter. I don't buy for a second that violent videogames turn kids into maniacs, I grew up on them and the worst law I've ever broken is a speed limit in my car, but even if you do subscribe to the Jack Thompson view of videogames influence on society a combat flight sim comes in at the very bottom of the 'murderer factory'. Compared to something like GTA it doesn't even register in my opinion.I love military jets and air combat and yet I'm a total pacifist. In my perfect world we'd settle international disputes in organized and nationally sponsored air combat LAN parties. ;)The 'bomb the tower after the third go around' comment made me laugh too. There have been more than a few cases where I've been manning the tower in multiplayer and would love to have had a sam launcher available. :)Bottom line, I'd like to see combat functionality in FS provided it didn't come at the expense of any current features. If you want to blow something up then great, if not then that's great too.-mike

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Simply put, you're wrong. Several early versions of FS included combat. Clearly, then, it has NOT "always" been meant to be a GA sim.Its naive to think that ACES did not understand the ramifications of including the ability to drop objects from and airplane, render special effects when they hit the ground, and then leave visible evidence of the impact afterwards.Out of the box, they created "flour bombs" in order to avoid negatively impacting their ESRB rating. But they clearly provided all the funtionality required to make "real" bombs, right down to special (editable) flight dynamics for the droppable objects.In light of that, combined with the fact that dropping bombs and/or simulated combat is purely optional, I fail to see how you can make the argument that you would be unneccesarily burdened by its presence. How hard is it to just avoid the feature? I hate the default ATC and I never use it. Solution: I don't file a flight plan, and I don't tune the radios. I didn't demand that the ATC engine be removed just because I don't like it.

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

Sound reasoning, and good point. I would be just as happy if they revived the CFS line, and hopefully they'll do just that.But in the mean time, I don't know why some find it so offensive that the mere capability to support such things be included with FSX and/or FS11.

[Guest UlfB]

>That's why soldiers are dying so that noone will nape your>children. The wars and the warriors you distain so much are>the ones who have made, and continue to make, it possible for>your children to sleep soundly at night and for YOU to have>the ability to express your opinions as you see fit. Mike,I distain wars, not the soldiers in general. Most soldiers in wars are victims as are the civilians. What I was talking about are the "freaks" that are given a very long leash during wars. You know, war criminals. Don't you distain them? Every war has the criminals and they exist on every side.>On behalf of those of the warriors who stand the line so that>you and your children can enjoy those freedoms and that>safety...a simple THANK YOU will do.When reading this I was tempted for a short moment to ask you a very simple question. But I won't. I'll only say that this statement is a statement that you would have a pretty good chance of meeting in every country and most nations around the globe. So I would have a lot of warriors to be greatful to, for a lot of different kind of freedoms and safety. A lot depends on culture.EDITED:An example from Sweden regarding the question what warrior to be thankful to. If I would have asked a Lapp what warriors he would be thankful to, what would his answer have been if I had asked him 100 years ago? (The Lapps is a nation from the nothern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia). The Lapps definition of freedom hasn't allways been the same as official in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Depends on culture. Maybe it still isn't the same.I guess that your'e an US resident by the way you express your feelings about freedom. I'm sure you could find some examples from US that show that what is percieved as freedom differ a lot among individuals, often depending on culture. Not that easy to know what warrior to show gratitude.Ulf B

[ahuimanu 50]

I think the point is: it swings both ways. The flour-bomb dropping means that the means to deliver dumb-bomb ordinance is sewn into MSFS anyway. Jeff requested discussion and discussion we are having.War may be a means to an end, but the means is not nice no matter how you slice it. Invariably, innocents pay.