Fly by wire is going to be a long way off I suspect. It's nigh on impossible to model now as flightsim doesn't handle unstable flight models, therefore you can't have a system built to control the instability because there is none lol.

If there is FS goes nuts and the plane flys all over the place.

Fly by wire isn't just for fighters. All Airbus aircraft now use a fly-by-wire system.

I believe that you are referring to the intentional instability of some aircraft, such as the F-16, which requires a computer to constantly make small adjustments to keep the aircraft flying. This does not need to be modeled in the sim as there is a very easy workaround. In the flight model for these aircraft, the effectiveness for the controls can be adjusted so that they mimick the flight characteristics of aircraft that are inherently unstable (B-2, F-117), or ones that are intentionaly unstable (F-16). However, there is a disadvantage to the instablility of some aircraft. For example, an F-16 at 300kts is capable of loading 9G so quickly that the G-suit does not have time compensate, usually incapacitating, and potentialy killing the pilot.

As for the other two, I would love to see them, however I don't think that they will be included for two reasons. The first is that MS wants to keep the FS franchise a "civilian", thus there has been only two default military aircraft in the previous 9 iterations that I can recall, the Vaught F4U4 Corsair, and the Sopwith Camel. The Curtis J4N Jenny may be considered military, but due to the extensive civillian use after the war I do not. The other reason is programming. In a vertical-horizontal flight transition there are many variables, even a simplified version would be very difficult to program. Hopefully they will be included, but I won't be holding my breath.

Quote:


show me us microsoft how

but can it take off truly vertical, not move 5 feet then take off, and still fly like an airplane?

HERE is a demonstration.

And HERE is my response.  It's a super neat-o movie I made and put on putfile of the F-35 from IRIS.

Quote:

It is  a fantastic gauge we have it in our V-22 but it's still not a true representation of Vectored thrust. It's very very clever gauge trickery, you can tell by the way it moves.

It's important to proper simulation that FS be able to cope with thrust being off the main axis of flight, the moment a flight model becomes unstable it goes haywire. This is why it can't handle the unstable aerobatics of the Extra 300 and Sukhoi and other aircraft like it. Once this is sorted then vectoring thrust should be no problem and I think that stubborness of not allowing military aircraft is a ridiculous reason not to include it. A large amount of add-ons for FS are military.

I'd just like to point this topic out to you, before you get too excited about the IRIS (as DSB in this topic) F-35. Not to pick fault, but to raise awareness.

Quote:


or wireless!

joystick- funny wireless thing- computer!

I would personally LOVE to have a sim that I can take off from a Carrier with an F-18, do a mission in Iraq or some other country with working weapnary, radar, and targets, come back and land. Then be able to hop aboard the next chopper and go fly a 747 out of KBOS. But this brings the issue of what we called in CFS a UFI (unidentified flying idiot) They would constantly come into a game we just want to fly togeather peacefully and do a shoot em up. It also allows for some pretty sick things to be done in FS (like bombing civillians ) also on the other side this would allow for something they have in FS Passengers, Civil aircraft damage from enemy fire, makes for interesting flights however, but not really appropriate.

so far i have only seen aircraft with a sort of mega-flap capabability, where it just pitches straight down if you do something wrong. There's no real VERTICAL lift. so it is thrust vectoring sort of, just not really balanced right.

Quote:

Sound really really really cool
I don't know how much you can actually interact with the orientation of the aircraft with the SDK, but nevertheless I am glad to ear that someone wants to try that posibility  8)