here is a link of screenies for the f16 that aerosoft is making.   

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=8608



ENJOY

Whats this?

Combat capability in FSX? If so I can only think payware developers are getting some kind of advanced preferential favours which we, the sim community at large are not.

My understanding is that FSX is not a combat sim.

Therefore if Aerosoft are claiming combat capability with presumably missile lock in addition to cannon, then this suggests the sim core supports weapon profiling and effects. The official microsoft demo does NOT support these.

I wonder are we being hood-winked by microsoft, or are payware 'chancers' making false claims?

Besides which, I personally wouldn't pay money for an f16. Common as muck and not that good either.

Jasper

You may be right Felix.

However, there were categoric statements to the effect that FSX was not a combat sim, if if turns out to be some kind of 'psuedo-combat' sim then your theory would hold up.

I guess we shall have to wait and see.

Although the more I look at the demo, the more I get put off the idea of buying.

No offence, but it is a bit too 'american' for my taste. I don't like the big band intro music either, I find it too invasive.

In addition, it has a crap flight engine just like it's predecessor. In-fact I reckon it's one and the same.

First? addon for FSX happens to be an f16, and they want money for it.

What's wrong with a MkI Spit or an Ef2000 typhoon?

well its true. It states that , if  a buddy has this same aircraft , you will be able to shoot them outa the sky. Also, its limited to dog fighting ( guns - and missle) ....so thoughs are some things to consider.

I see alot of doughbtful minds and just want to clear it up , that you WILL be able to shoot your buddys out of the sky, as long as there an aerosoft f16

no worry there buddy. Alphasim and another company are working on an f/a18 super hornet that has a full , real deal weapons system and it is supposed to be fly by wire...they are talking of it and that may just be the first fly by wire ( payware ) aircraft......... here is the forum


http://www.alphasim3.com/forums/index.php?topic=20.0 ; once again....lol, enjoy.....oh you you f14 lovers...heres your time to shine.

http://www.irissimulations.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=9


your welcome all, droooolllllll it up

...  ma ma ...

I've found a new love for F-18s (not really, i've always liked them a bit), but now its beautiful.  So goooooood....

Drooling severely..

Well, not much.  I'm the type that drools over some payware thing, but doesn't actually buy it...

I stick to freeware.  However.  On occasion, I will consider buying something payware, provided that it is extremely high quality, and downloadable (cuz i don't like delivery much, unless its a full-fledged game/sim/etc.).

This could be that long awaited exception.
Too bad it isn't an f-14.  Or Su-47 (or S. 37) Berkut.

Quote:


If that is the case I would have to agree.

However, I suspect that there is some kind of  FSX support for weapons damage and weapons,etc and it can be incorporated into any aproprate FSX aircraft.

All that was said is the FSX is not a combat sim. This is true out of the box but,  I suspect that  some combat  (dogfight) mods will be possible.
In fact, ACES has been somewhat vauge and advasive when asked about combat and FSX.

From a marketing standpoint it could be a win-win situation: A dedicated civil sim for those who want it that also supports some combat via mods.

How about  "Battle of Britton" mod?
How about a Battle of Midway" mod uilizing the new improved carrior support?
Much can be done with just "dogfight"  support.

Quote:


No, I don't envision FSX having "global damage effects" either.......just the aircraft to aircraft "dogfight" effects modeling.
As far as needing the same aircraft, I interpete this to mean that the F-16 in question is now the only one to support this so far. So, you will need an identical aircraft, for now at least.

I don't see any reason why somone else can't develope other aircraft with exactly the same effects, etc..
I'm shure the FSX game engine does't dictate that only a F-16 can have this capability.

Quote:


x_jasper, if I understood well, you have some knowledge in aircraft data modelling in the FS series.
So you certainly know what a simple gauge allows...

It is very obvious that this F-16 has a gauge-based system that allows to shoot or be shot, and every plane with that same gauge will act the same.

It's exactely like this carrier operation gauge we had for FS9, or this hovering gauge. Any plane can receive the gauge, so any plane will be able to do carrier ops, or hovering, or (in aerosoft case) shoot and be shot.

I'd put my bet on this being localised damage effects rather than a complete system as in previous CFS series.

Although in my opinion it's rather irrelevant since the flight engine itself isn't really good enough for combat. For example, FS9 & FSX are good for transport & civillian aircraft modelling but actually giving them aerobatic dynamics does bring to light some major shortcomings.

Little has been changed in this respect since they ripped essential components out of the FS9 core.

I actually find these two sims very good for the likes of biplanes and heavy transport aircraft, but for anything demanding the modelling simply isn't upto the job.

As for an f16....not to my taste, of average performance and of no historical relevance.

Regards
Jasper

Yes, the first Flight Simulator I-III had "World War I ace".  A special grid supposed to be the German-French border split by a river. Of course primitive by today's standards, but 25 years ago, FS had a more diverse market. FS was one of the best game programs out ther for the 8-bits. (still is one of the best games!) Lots of folks played FS primarily for the WWI ace game. Later Jet1.0 -> Falcon 1.0 etc.

I wouldn't mind seeing flight combat coming back to FSX. If you use CrashBak you see most of the planes had damage and flaming explosion effects support anyways(pre 9/11).
Damage factors are in FS, and PMDG and other addons make use of them. (ex. broken/bent gear, damaged flaps etc).

Maybe one day 10 years from now we'll get all in one. You hope out your plane in a war zone along with your Delta force buddies and start ground wars(see Operation Flashpoint and thier real simple AH-64, Hinds, Warthog and Cessna 172 etc. support). Maybe fight your way to the next airport , steal aboard a 737, and blast off with dirty system setups etc. to escape with freed hostages.
3-D landscape would be the whole world. Or just plain 3D guy you walk around after you leave the plane , go to your charter company for work , meet up with some CEO client to take on the next charter flight. Beat deadlien, please customer , get $$$ etc. FSPassengers^2 etc.

X-jasper, have you tried IL2: forgotten battles and/or IL2: pacific? if so, how's the flight engine (aerobatics and dogfighting centric) in your opinion? Engine, supposedly designed by ex-Soviet military aerospace engineer(s).

Well, I suspect you'd have to have some limitations as to what you can do in multiplayer sessions, although I'd love to see the face of an as real as it gets airliner pilot on final approach when someone bombs the runway. I think it would only work if you are only allowed to use weapons in defined areas, war zones or target practice areas, otherwise you'll have lots of lurking player-killers.  Of course this would lead to further segregation between civilians and the military where warplanes can only land at military airbases, and you have no fly zones for civilian aircraft, I'm not sure how this could be enforced, electroshock joysticks perhaps?
And assuming we do get a perfect world simulation somewhere down the line it'll make a superb peaceful way to resolve conflicts and relieve frustration without resorting to violence. (Yes, I am an old hippy.)
In the meantime I'll make do with better roads and terrain, and hopefully somewhat better landclass.
cheers
Chris

Quote:


IL2 FB is a GAME, not a simulation.  The flight models are GARBAGE.

If CFS3 hadn't been an unfinished piece of junk, instead of what it was CAPABLE of being, Il2 would have died with a whimper a long time ago.  As bad as CFS3 was, the Avhistory 1% planes are light years ahead of anything in IL2.

I admit that I do 'fly' it, but only because it's what the RAF662 went to.

Quote:


What's wrong with Ace Combat? It  can be a nice relax from flying those heavies sometimes plus you get a variety of planes default 

Quote:


A 'sim' with 350-400 MPH Zero's that doesn't lose aireron control and/or shed their wings is a GAME,

A 'sim' where US .50's hit like 5MMs, and Japanese 7.62's hit like 40MMs is a GAME.

A 'sim' where a Spit 25 LB can climb at full throttle, at 80 mph, and 2K FPM indefinately is a GAME.

A 'sim' where you make a headon pass in a P-38 against an La 7 and the La does a fast 180 and runs you down in 30 seconds is a GAME.

A 'sim' where the flight models are 'tweeked' for better online play is a GAME.

A 'sim' where the P-39D and N are  "Reasonably maneuverable at lower altitudes", and the Q (which was the Russian export model) is 'One of the best mass-produced front-line fighters of the Second World war with high flight performance" a GAME!

Now, as to whether or not the flight engine is superior to what MS uses is up for debate...but the FM's of the aircraft in the game (and yes, I'm speaking of the 4.04m update) are the products of a Russian's Vodka soaked dreams and not based on reality.