"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. "Mike-I agree completely. If I have one regret in my life it is that I didn't have the opportunity to serve as you did. Thank you for your service! http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>>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.>>That's a completely loaded statement Mike and somewhat non-sequitur to the discussion. I always argue that is is impossible to seperate the use of arms from politics (war is politics after all), but it certainly feels like you are pointing a finger at anyone who prefers peace over war.Jeff's post was seeking comment and we have all expressed ours - admonishing people over their support for soldiers seems off the point. In any case, whether or not people appreciate your service to the United States (of which many flight simmers are not citizens) doesn't have much to do with bombs and guns in MSFS. You want them in and some of us don't - neither of us is going to have a breakdown if they are in and out. If you want them, and they make it in, I'll be happy for you and - as you point out - it won't prevent me from enjoying the sim.And for the record, as a US citizen, I do thank you for your service to the United States, but I'm not sure if a guy from Sweden owes you his thanks.

I think the problem is, people are over-complicating the "problem" at hand, and are clouding the debate with extraneous information.We can simplify the argument down to some basic components:Does including the ABILITY to OPTIONALLY drop bombs, shoot guns, or otherwise employ weapons or military tactics in FSX unfairly expose anyone to undesired violence? Or does it limit the functionality or playability for those who wish to sight-see in their GA airplanes?No.Does excluding that ability limit the functionality and playability of those who want to employ weapons?Yes.So clearly, the first option allows both groups of people to get what they want out of the sim without interfering with one another. While the second option clearly excludes one group's desires.

@ BlueRidgeDxIf I at any moment would have feared that my opion would restrict your use of FSX, I would of course not posted about it.Please feel free to use FSX whatever way you want.Thanks for the discussion.Ulf B

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.If you are talking about that little side dogfight side function, that was nothing more than an extra bonus to the program, Sort of like Windows including Solitaire. There was also a crop dusting game, does that mean it was meant to be a crop duster program? There was a separate series as mentioned above that did revolve around combat, but that only survived 3 versions, and none of the combat features was intergraded into MSFS itself. The MSFS series main focus always have remained a General and later Commercial Aviation sim. Now I didn't say I was opposed to the idea. One of the main things I like about FS is it's versatility. About the only vehicle it can't simulate (Atleast partially) is a Train, and that's coming in it's own simulator based on the FSX engine. As a matter of fact, I believe thee are some effect files in the library that does allow the dropping of bombs and even a Nuke. I've also seen an ad from 3rd party vender (Sorry I don't remember which one) that does the same, and claims they can do air to air also. All this though doesn't change the fact that this type of use was what Aces intended with FS. Just that the program is versatile enough to handle it, at least to a point.

The fact remains, combat HAS been included out-of-the-box and therefore, its wrong to say that the FS franchise was "always intended to be a GA simulator."

Clearly your opinion does not currently prevent me from using FSX in the manner I see fit.I obviously meant that people who share your opinion, if given the chance, would have ACES make it impossible to use weapons in future iterations of the franchise.That WOULD restrict my usage.

Here we go again :)IMO, the Combat FS can be designed as expansion pack for FS11. The CFS part having weaponry, missions, mil planes, carriers, mil airports sceneries, mil ATC, damage models, etc, etc, etc. CFS and FS share same world, same scenery, same physics, etc. How to separate them so no one will be posting an F15-firing-at-B747 shots? Introduce "hot mode" and "cold mode". In "hot mode", you can fire weapons to other mil objects as civilian objects (planes, people) are not loaded. "Cold mode" is a safety-on, no active weaponry, so you can fly among the normal world.The "hot mode" is a CFS, pure and simple. There are many applications for "cold mode" too -- S&R, carrier training, mid-air refueling, etc. There is a great historical value in military part of FS. Aviation development and military history are tightly connected. I like Microsoft to put FS and CFS together. I think having CFS as an expansion, and introducing "hot/cold" modes can fully satisfy both doves and eagles, at least not the ones that get too hysterical.Cheers,=S.V.=CPU: Intel Core2Duo E4500 2x2.2Ghz, 1GbGPU: nVidia Quadro FX 3400 256 MbOS: WinXP(SP2) FS: FSX(SP2) MP: http://www.FSEconomy.com

Or...We could all just agree that its a game, and allow each user to use the simulator in whatever manner that they see fit without restriction. No need for special modes, codes, safety interlocks, or anything of the sort.I don't see the difficulty in simply choosing NOT to download/install/fly an F-16 and/or dropping bombs if you object to it. Isn't that the most simple solution?I'm about 99.999% sure that ACES won't explicitly include combat in FS11 or any other version unless its title begins with "CFS", so why the fuss anyway? All we're talking about here is PASSIVE support to enable third-party developers to SIMULATE the use of weapons.

>Or...>>We could all just agree that its a game, and allow each user>to use the simulator in whatever manner that they see fit>without restriction. No need for special modes, codes, safety>interlocks, or anything of the sort.>I don't see the difficulty in simply choosing NOT to>download/install/fly an F-16 and/or dropping bombs if you>object to it. Isn't that the most simple solution?>I doubt that FS screenshots of downtowns bursting into flames and passenger planes being shot down will do any good to our beloved franchise. I'm a realism junkie, and I vote for damage/crash modeling etc. But screenies like this will quickly bring this product to end, and you perfectly know why. Just look at how media describes every aviation accident. So there should be a smart solution for FS and CFS to co-exist in the same game, and I offered an easy way to do it. >I'm about 99.999% sure that ACES won't explicitly include>combat in FS11 or any other version unless its title begins>with "CFS", so why the fuss anyway? According to Aces, there is CFS in the works, along with ESP and Trains2. I hope it is going to be an add-on to FS, not a standalone. Once I had both CSF2 and FS2002 installed on the same computer, having 2 huge folders side-by-side, that probably duplicate each other for 70% of the codes. >>All we're talking about here is PASSIVE support to enable>third-party developers to SIMULATE the use of weapons.Again, CFS could have a full and ACTIVELY supported life span within the existing FS platform, IF there was a clear borderline between use and non-use of weapons.

I just wanted to clearify my post from earlier. My only concern is whether or not adding combat to Flight Sim would have an adverse effect on the sim in any way. For example having to limit features or systems simulations or degrading performance in any way. If it doesn't then I suppose it doesn't matter. I would just think that if Flight Sim and a Combat Flight Sim were developed seperately more attention to detail could be programmed into each one. Of course if it could be done without sacrifice we would have to spend less money!;) But then if MS does seperate titles they make more sales because they're selling two titles. I guess we know which way MS would go. Would adding combat change the rating of the sim? Like from being rated for all ages to mature or someting?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

I agree with you. The ideal solution is a revival of CFS, along with proper support like you mentioned. But I thought we were talking about weapons in the context of FSX?With regard to the issue of screenshots of civilian airliners being shot down:While it sounds like a good idea to prevent such behavior, I don't think its necessary. Its distasteful enough an act that it simply won't be prevalent. Thats why, even though its currently possible, we don't see screenshots of airliners crashing or playing kamikaze. On the rare occasion that somebody actually posts something like that, they're immediately attacked, and they don't post stuff like that anymore. Problem solved.My point is, there's no need to place artificial limits on what the user can do. If little Johnny wants to fly his 737 into the Pentagon all day long, in the privacy of his own home, who am I to stop him? But if he decides to post screenshots of the act on a public forum, then FIGHT'S ON!How is it any different if little Timmy wants to put a Mk-82 through the window of an autogen warehouse? The simulator doesn't put bubbles around buildings to prevent kamikaze attacks, or prevent you from flying under bridges, or stop you from flying the 747 inverted. I don't think it needs to restrict weapons either.

Again, I agree. I'd much rather ACES focus on things like ATC and AI, rather than combat.And if support for weapons receives less attention (or not at all) in favor of focusing on those things, then thats fine with me.My position is not that "combat MUST be included in FSX/FS11", rather, I object to the notion that "combat MUSTN'T be included because its wrong."I'm positive that having weapons would adversely affect the ESRB rating, and thats why combat will never be explicitly and overtly supported in an FS title.

While I love combat sims, I don't think it makes sense to include weaponry in this sim unless it's in context.. which would mean providing a military career or missions with an actual opposing force. All this would mean coding teammates, adding military bases and targets, enemy AI, etc etc which is both exhaustive and quite frankly, done better in sims dedicated to providing the localized combat experience and not rendering the entire world. I feel MSFS has provided intelligent and interesting ways of allowing you to drop non violent objects to test your flying skill , and that's enough for me. Having bombs or guns just to blow stuff up sounds gratuitous. HOWEVER. I am a huge advocate of having a visible damage model for crashes. What I love in IL2 is when I fail a landing due to damage or my incompetance, or have a mid air collision, I see how badly things go for me, from collapsing my landing gear, to shearing off a wing, to crumpling my propellers, to flipping upside down and or even exploding into a ball of flame. Yes, it might encourage people to be suicidal if a glorious ball of flame happened every time you nose dived into something, but civilian airplane accidents happen all the time, and therefore should be modelled accurately too. At least as an indicator of whether you would have survived a crash or not.

Let me just remind everyone that shortly after 9/11, purchasing of FS was almost assured to get you investigated for possible terrorist links.It happened to a young guy in the state of Pennsylvania. Local police, FBI... full investigation, arrest, detention.That's with a sim that doesn't offer any combat capability. Imagine how much worse the "threat" could be perceived if it offered combat capability as well.FS was "blamed" for "training" the terrorists, despite the fact it had nothing to do with their actual training. There were cries to eliminate the software and make it's existence/ownership illegal. DARPA made access to nav data classified, despite the fact it's in Jeppensen's books, NOAA charts... etc... in an effort to make our country "secure".Be careful what you ask for... you might not like the end result. This is a civilian flight simulation and should remain so, for the sake of ensuring it's harder to argue it's elimination by the paranoid.