hey everyone.
how many of you out there would like to see regular* military trafic (*as in not having to download it)  going in and out of military bases?

wouldn't that be cool. for instance...mabey red flag F-16's, 15's, 22's, A-10's on the flightline at Nellis AFB then have some take off to the nellis range.

or mabey some B-52's at minot AFB, or Test aircraft like UCAV's and X-Planes at Edwards AFB, or the airshow at Oshkosh.

hey mabey even the Blue Angels at Pensicola NAS...
wouln't that be cool?

That would be good, but I often get the feeling that with FS9, military is a dirty word.

Matt

If you want military AI, then you can always go to www.projectai.com

You get them for free, installation is easy, and all AI traffic from the site is frame-rate friendly.

Quote:


The problem with military AI is the fact that the military bases don't have parking spaces.   I've found that the bases need to have military parking for the planes.

Quote:


Did you install the PAI installer?

Quote:



Sir Bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I guess the UK News is right. The Honours System has taken a real nose dive.

Matt

Quote:


Why? Surely a common World Sim platform (for ships/trains/cars as well as planes) is a worthy goal? And once that world is realistically modelled (read trade-off between accuracy and frame rates), and the physics of movement through that world realistically modelled (microlight, motorbike, 747 or speedboat) this common sim-world platform can be used to host any nature of sim; rally, train sim, flight, combat...

What's the problem with FSX with guns anyway?

J_o_J

Quote:


......same as Fozz says....and I don't mind saying that have a problem with guns FULL STOP (or PERIOD) as they say in other parts of the world.) real life or sim....commoner.

Quote:


As I said, a nose dive

Matt

Quote:



The Computer Geek and The Plant Whisperer.....A made for TV movie perhaps.

Matt

Quote:


It's ok to have military aircraft flying around in FS because that's was FS is all about. Just flying. As for restrictions, that's a good idea. My idea is to simply have the ATC send a radio message warning you that you are tresspassing and should give you enough time before an "autoland" feature kicks in and lands you on the nearest airport. After which a message should appear saying:

Congradulations! Your @55 is now busted and the FAA and FBI have your rear end on a sling. From here on, FS will now crash to your desktop. Have a nice day.

Quote:


Yah , but sounds great. lol 

Quote:



The Sims meets FSX

Matt

I love my guns-- they represent one of my most basic freedoms as an American. I have 12 of them; 7 are handguns and the other 5 are rifles. I have no shotguns, but the purchase of one is planned.  One of my rifles can hit a Coke can at 600 yards if I'm on my game that day. I pity those of you around the world who can't own a gun because your governments don't trust you.

Quote:



..WOW!..hit a coke can at 600 yards?...how COOL is THAT? .......

BTW.....we ARE allowed to own a gun if we have a specific use for one...sporting guns, target shooting etc......but you wouldn't get a licence to shoot at Coke cans............we never had the "Wild West" here in the uk........sounds like it never went away in the US...........commoner......

Back on topic I think flight unlimited handeled this quite well:

there were F-16's ect. in the air and there was an area of restricted airspace that would get you quite a shouting at by atc if you went in and f-16's aproched you if you stayed for long enough.  There however were no guns, the planes didn't try to shoot you down like they would in real life (well at least nowerdays).  This is a good blanaced between creating a realistic simulation and another viloent game, which most are and frankly it's getting boring blowing peoples heads off.

What evil thing would happen if you had guns and weapons and the ability to shootdown blow stuff up in FSX? What terrible thing would happen? Does anyone have an example?

almost all games revolve around violence, it's tiring I play FS to relax.

The only thing involving destruction that needs adding, is realistic crash damage. I've become all too annoyed with hitting the ground, not knowing exactly how much I've damaged the aircraft (say, if it's collapsed undercarriage, or whether I've ripped the tail off!). It's got to the point where I've had to take crash detection off, so I atleast get some sort of sliding of the aircraft when I hit the floor, rather than some awful crash sounds, and a frozen plane, stuck in the ground .

Could I suggest that the FSX engine includes the facility for air combat? It could be sold with that facility disabled as FSX and with the facility enabled as CFS4. Different boxes, different marketing, same engine at the heart of both. I'm a CFS2 and FS2004 flyer; I'd like some Cold War USSR overflight missions where there's an outside chance that some Fagots or Frescos or Farmers get scrambled to escort me... or early SAMs get launched...

I'd also like to see a simworld that could be used for rail, flight, driving and nautical simulation, using real world data.

Somehow, I think Google will get there first...

J_o_J

If FS wants to be as real as it gets then it should include military AI and military airspace, and the relevant ATC procedures operating from them (myself and the-ex-pat have discussed them before). In the real world I can take a civvy aircraft in to military ATZ, and vice versa, so why not it the sim.

Quote:



Hi Commoner

I think you are missing Charlie's point. We are not asking for shoot to kill, just procedures. In the real world, you can fly into military airspace in a civilian aircraft. Where I live, the town is in a MATZ. We have civilian traffic pass through all the time.  Not seen anyone go down in flames yet .
What is wrong with military airspace appearing on a map? It is out there in real life.  If you enter, you get a "verbal" over the radio, just as you would in real life.  An AI F16 on your wing until you leave is hardly pampering to the shoot em up brigade. 

For my part, if talk down were included, that would be as military as I would want, but as it wont be, lets include a MATZ or two instead. FS is about procedures; CFS is about fireballs in the sky. Why can we not have some military procedures in FS? The sim is titled a Century of Flight and not a Century of Civilian Flight. Unfortunately, most advances in civilian aircraft have their roots in military development

Matt

...mmm...so sorry lads thatyou think I missed your point....your point of view is taken and understood.....BUT I think you fail to see my point which is..........I don't want my FSX to have anything to do with Military Flying.......Commercial only for me as it has always been......which is only my own point of view. I don't agree with yours but I accept it and merely "beg to differ"..........commoner.......

...Maybe it is because I was raised during a particularly nasty period of wartime and saw first hand the misery and sorrow that bombing the shit out of the towns and cities of "enemy" countries, brings..........WW2 has left many scars on my mind.......particularly the fact that we didn't learn from all that crap and are still doing it.........so sad.

...A war weary commoner.........

...Well let me just say, in answer to the original question by aviation_nation, which was you might remember....

" hey everyone.
how many of you out there would like to see regular* military traffic".......

.....is NO I wouldn't....what more can I say?...........

Your opinions are as valid as mine...but it is Sir Bill and his team you have to convince, and if I was a betting man I would wager you will be dissappointed if you want FSX to be anything more than it is now.......commoner.


 

???
Siggghhhhhh

You can add as much military traffic as you want. Trouble is the people who shout loudest for it are either too thick or too bone idle to get off their backsides and do it for themselves.

There were several things I wanted in FS. I wanted Kai Tak open - so I created the scenery. I wanted to have AI helos so I made my own - sorry, almost uploaded but never got round to it as too busy doing other projects. I wanted to have AI aircraft and helos flying on and off carriers, so I created a system and sceneries (sorry again, never bothered uploading but Ozzie has flown it).

The great majority of the more sensible things that people want in FSX you can already get - but you need a little effort to download and install something that someone else has created for you to do it. Even that's a bit too much trouble for some people apparently.

How many of the folks saying 'I want, I want' have actually themselves made and contributed any add-on to the sim community? Not too many I'm sure.

So...

I run two businesses, have raised a family and still have one at home, work a seven day week, have owned two aircraft and could fly every day at that time in my life. But what has that got to do with it?

I happen to enjoy this hobby greatly, admire the folks who have devoted enormous skill and effort in creating the software, much appreciate the contributions of others who generously provide the stunning free addons that so enhance my enjoyment and have tried to make a small effort to give a little bit back when I have ben able to the freeware community.

We all have our priorities in life that change as we pass from phase to phase. There are many things I would like to do that I don't have time for and there are things I will never do because I recognise that I'm not clever enough.

But what pi**es me off is the guys who sit on the sidelines, never making an effort to make a contribution of their own and yet constantly make demands and criticise what others have done.

I am sorry if expressing these views upsets you in any way - I'm very surprised ex-pat if that is actually the case.

Go in peace.

Quote:



That is understandable, statement.
I have never produced and am unlikely to do so. I have no understanding of computers. Anyone who does produce is a God of the white magic box that lives under my desk. I kneel before them.  I take my hat off to them.  They truly have my admiration. I fully admit to being a user with no Idea about production, but not only that, I have no interest in learning about computers or writing software for them. That does not make me lazy or too thick, but you are tarring a lot of people with the same brush in this thread. As for upsetting me, not at all. Sometimes these conversations are a little more "entertaining" than the usual:
Who has got the Nocd patch; what’s the best download; should I land my 737 at 124 knots or 125 knots, well you know what I mean.


Matt

I still haven’t seen anyone post a valid example of what evil thing would happen if a combat capability was added.

We have opinions:

....The terrible thing that would happen is that the finest PC Flight simulator..indeed the ONLY flight simulator worthy of the name.....would be reduced to the Genre ..."Shoot 'em Up" .UGH!

How? Do combat sims require a lower fidelity or less “real as it gets” stuff?



I don't want to start a political discussion, but I have a VERY good example and I'll just sum it up with three numbers: 9/11

The terrorists used FS2000 [it was still the latest at the time] to train themselves to ram four planes into four different buildings. Can you imagine what kind of training they will have if guns and explosions were included?

You can do a 9/11 simulation now with the FS series. So how does the combat ability change this? The two are not related to each other. 

I don’t get the second part. Are you saying the terrorists will attack the US with WW1 aircraft, Zeppelins or ww2 aircraft? Seems odd?

Is there an example that supports a combat ability would be detrimental to FSX? Is the "fear" justified?

Quote:


Thanks for pointing that out. AI is what we were talking about. Not combat capabilities. Of course, some of us strayed off topic [me included], but thanks for reminding us what this topic is mainly about.

Quote:


I use to be in CAP. I left the program as a C/2nd Lt. After that, I joined the Air Force and I'm now a A1c working in the Pharmacy.

Katahu
314 Medical Support Squadron
Pharmacy Tech [aka: Professional Drug Dealer ]
Little Rock AFB

Flight simulator 4.1, Flight Simulator 5, Flight simulator 95, Flight simulaotr 98, Flight simulator 2000, Flight simulator 2002, Flight simulator 2004, Flight Simulator X...oh, and the one for the spectrum 48k was also flight simulator something!!

This are all the flight simulators that I've played siince I was a child, and I can't seem to find the word "civil" in any of them!!!!

Just two words, flight and simulator. This is exactly what it is! A simulator of flying in all it variations!so, I see to fail the point of people saying that this is only a civil flight simulator...

I'm against guns and I fail to understand how a so called developed nation can still defend the right for everyone to have a gun with litle less than a visual check by the person who sells them!!!

I hate the macho things of: uhh, see how far I can hit that bottle??

I don't like hunting, and I sure despise anyone trying to end a human life...BUT:

I do feel that the military procedures in flying are quite chalanging, and as a flight enthusiast, I also would like to try those chalenges, and why not, trying to use a gun to destroy a target!

Now, this has nothing to do with me wanting to kill anyone or destroy anyone in the real world, it merely has a technical attraction because it is hard and demanding to operate a modern jet fighter!

This is what I want from my flight simulator, not the ability to kill people, or even pretend it, but the ability to perform realworld chalenges, just for the complex nature of it!!

I loooove flying my new fsd cessna, and flying metal cigars, but I also love to fly military jets, as I love to fly ultralights, etc,etc!!

So, basically, I love flying anything, and therefore I'm opposed to any form of scensorship that can be put into a flight simulator!

cheers

well, that's a great idea, why not...hehe...though in a f16 it would be strange but hey...this is flightsim, so no limits...LOL

Quote:


What is a "Shoot 'em Up" that it would be turned into? You're still saying the quality would go down. Just trying to understand your fear that a combat option would ruin the civilian side.