Please put your post in the correct forum.
Today we had to move over 150 posts manually.  We do feel the forum structure is logical and the section names are clear. As redirecting posts pollute the forum a lot we will not add them anymore. So if you are unable to find your post, look for it in the most logical forum section.

Jump to content
Robert S

Combat capability in FSX - it's happening

Recommended Posts

Hm, so it seems a developer will be releasing a payware mod that will allow you to target AI aircraft and ground objects, and actually destroy them with weapons in FSX.

I don't know whether you will need a particular military payware aircraft to do this, only that the capability to do so is a seperate mod to be priced later.

There is a video demonstration of this capability on Youtube already - the AI aircraft gets hit, explodes, and drops out of the sky. :blink:

So, what do you think about this? Something you would get? Is it good for FSX?

Me - I think I might get it...

But I think the bigger picture here is that it was implied this functionality could not ever be done in FSX...

And if it is possible, is it something that Aerosoft will strive to be compatible with?

Things that make you go hmmmm.......

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

This would be really awesome (especially if we can put it on any aircraft ourselves)

Imagine shooting a Mig out of the sky from AF1

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

And if it is possible, is it something that Aerosoft will strive to be compatible with?

No.

I'll be honest, ever since FS2002 we have had access to radar and ifr guide missiles (we can do every version of the Sidewinder with a good deal of realism) and making bullets is not hard at all. And really that's all a LOT harder then air to ground. But we have always decided that FS is a civil simulator and that bombs, bullets and missiles have no place in it. Part of that was based on the fact that even basic collision detection takes a huge deal of CPU power but even more important was that we just did not think it was right. We wish other people all the best, but we got no plans to be compatible with that in any way. Not even with the A-10, lol.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

Can't disagree with you on that Mathijs. Guy's, if you want a COMBAT Sim then go for one but for crying out load keep FS out of it. It's a Flight Sim NOT a Combat Sim, so go else where for your kicks and keep FS out of it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

And that is why I bought the F-16, and look forward to the A10.

The joy in my view is the performance and maneuverability, not the weaponry.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ditto, a civilian flight simulator doesn't need the weaponology.

Mind you, if the weapons use requires that after being shot down you have to re-purchase the aircraft in order to fly it again there might be some consequences that would teach some people that war isn't a game... and some commercial developers that could look forward to a rosy future! :blush:

Bullets and bombs are not for me, but I would take it a step further: Nor would be helping, assisting or supporting in any way anyone who adds this package to FSX.

Not for moral reasons, simply because the number of new elements this would introduce to the average troubleshoot would massively increase the complexity of sorting out a problem. And anyone who wants this `shoot `em up` experience in FSX is likely the kind of moron who would need hand-holding and helping more than real simmers... :ph34r::banghead1_s:

Those who think this is a good idea might want to consider the implications for such a `non-standard` package in the simulator and for future support for commercially-purchased products.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Mind you, if the weapons use requires that after being shot down you have to re-purchase the aircraft in order to fly it again there might be some consequences that would teach some people that war isn't a

That's an idea I had for a long time. Make an aircraft that will make you fly more realistic because crashing it will cost you money. I think we'll see a lot more go-around then.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mind you, if the weapons use requires that after being shot down you have to re-purchase the aircraft in order to fly it again there might be some consequences that would teach some people that war isn't a game... and some commercial developers that could look forward to a rosy future! :blush:

But isn't this a bit em!! If I was a commercial pilot flying say a 747 from Australia to London via Hong Kong and some dipstick in an F-16 desided to take me out I would have to buy the 747 again rather that the F-16 guy?? I certainly would be pi**** off with that when all I want to do is fly civil and not military, therefore, it's the pri^^ in the F-16 in my eyes has to repurchase his aircraft and not me.

That's an idea I had for a long time. Make an aircraft that will make you fly more realistic because crashing it will cost you money. I think we'll see a lot more go-around then.

Have to agree with you to some extent Mathijs. 3 strikes and your out so to speak....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's not really my business or anyone else's to dictate what others can or cannot do with their flight simulator so long as the revenue model is a one-time licensing payment for software that resides on the licensee's own hardware.

If there is a good number of people that are attracted to combat functionality then, even though I have no interest in such an add-on, I hope it gets commercialized. The more people participating in our hobby the more attractive it becomes for developers to create new add-ons. I don't think Aerosoft would complain if they could increase sales of their non-combat products, by let's say 20% for arguement's sake, because the addressable market is that much bigger. Or would it deny sales to people who plan to use their simulator for combat?

If it costs Aerosoft 3 million and 2 years to produce the Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012 then it would likey need to generate a minimum 4 million EBIT profit to justify the investment. If the marginal cost of adding combat capabilities to the simulator is minimal versus the potentially greatly expanded addressable market then it could turn a no-go decision into a go. Ergo everyone benefits. Of course it is not my business to say what Aerosoft should do with it's capital - presumably the company is closely held by a very small number of owners who therefore have every right to inject their individual moral judgement as part of their investment decision process - but it is my opinion that at the very least it would make sense from a profit maximization standpoint to try to broaden the company's addressable market as much as possible so long as it is within its current capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not really my business or anyone else's to dictate what others can or cannot do with their flight simulator so long as the revenue model is a one-time licensing payment for software that resides on the licensee's own hardware.

If there is a good number of people that are attracted to combat functionality then, even though I have no interest in such an add-on, I hope it gets commercialized. The more people participating in our hobby the more attractive it becomes for developers to create new add-ons. I don't think Aerosoft would complain if they could increase sales of their non-combat products, by let's say 20% for arguement's sake, because the addressable market is that much bigger. Or would it deny sales to people who plan to use their simulator for combat?

If it costs Aerosoft 3 million and 2 years to produce the Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012 then it would likey need to generate a minimum 4 million EBIT profit to justify the investment. If the marginal cost of adding combat capabilities to the simulator is minimal versus the potentially greatly expanded addressable market then it could turn a no-go decision into a go. Ergo everyone benefits. Of course it is not my business to say what Aerosoft should do with it's capital - presumably the company is closely held by a very small number of owners who therefore have every right to inject their individual moral judgement as part of their investment decision process - but it is my opinion that at the very least it would make sense from a profit maximization standpoint to try to broaden the company's addressable market as much as possible so long as it is within its current capabilities.

Disagree. Doing so would put the project in direct competition with a bunch of other products already firmly established in the marketplace. Losing the USP is never a viable marketing decision when there is no new USP to replace it. One of the major conventions of the FS genre is that it does not offer the violence, aggressiveness and warmongering of other products, and to step outside that comfort zone would reduce market appeal, not enhance it.

The broad-based appeal of the product is based on global reach, and I can easily see restrictions on supply into certain markets where the approach is not deemed politically or morally-suitable for the masses. If the ambition is achieve a greater market, increased sales and a new customer base then the way to do so is to build on the established strengths of the genre, not drop napalm on them...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

It's not really my business or anyone else's to dictate what others can or cannot do with their flight simulator so long as the revenue model is a one-time licensing payment for software that resides on the licensee's own hardware.

If there is a good number of people that are attracted to combat functionality then, even though I have no interest in such an add-on, I hope it gets commercialized. The more people participating in our hobby the more attractive it becomes for developers to create new add-ons. I don't think Aerosoft would complain if they could increase sales of their non-combat products, by let's say 20% for arguement's sake, because the addressable market is that much bigger. Or would it deny sales to people who plan to use their simulator for combat?

If it costs Aerosoft 3 million and 2 years to produce the Aerosoft Flight Simulator 2012 then it would likey need to generate a minimum 4 million EBIT profit to justify the investment. If the marginal cost of adding combat capabilities to the simulator is minimal versus the potentially greatly expanded addressable market then it could turn a no-go decision into a go. Ergo everyone benefits. Of course it is not my business to say what Aerosoft should do with it's capital - presumably the company is closely held by a very small number of owners who therefore have every right to inject their individual moral judgement as part of their investment decision process - but it is my opinion that at the very least it would make sense from a profit maximization standpoint to try to broaden the company's addressable market as much as possible so long as it is within its current capabilities.

It's in fact owned by one person, my CEO and good friend Winfried Diekmann. And you make good sense, but...

  • it could easily increase development time and budget (you underestimate the amount btw) for a new sim with a good margin.
  • dragging additional code could increase memory demands and decrease framerates. In fact I personally do not see it being possible to do a full featured combat sim that uses a round fully covered world.
  • it would muddle up the profile we got in mind, the hard core fighters will see it as a civil sim and the big airline pilots will see it as a fighter sim, it's a loose/loose situation
  • we like to keep some options for a fighter sim open, lol.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

will there ever be crash effects in Flight Simulators like in Lock On??

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

will there ever be crash effects in Flight Simulators like in Lock On??

Can't see why, it's a flight simulator, not a crash simulator.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's in fact owned by one person, my CEO and good friend Winfried Diekmann. And you make good sense, but...

  • it could easily increase development time and budget (you underestimate the amount btw) for a new sim with a good margin.
  • dragging additional code could increase memory demands and decrease framerates. In fact I personally do not see it being possible to do a full featured combat sim that uses a round fully covered world.
  • it would muddle up the profile we got in mind, the hard core fighters will see it as a civil sim and the big airline pilots will see it as a fighter sim, it's a loose/loose situation
  • we like to keep some options for a fighter sim open, lol.

Strange: If Rise of flight (for instance) were to be one of the leading candidates for engine usage, wouldn't all the coding for calculating damage, impacts, trajectory's and etc already be a part of the underlying code-base?

Share this post


Link to post

Strange: If Rise of flight (for instance) were to be one of the leading candidates for engine usage, wouldn't all the coding for calculating damage, impacts, trajectory's and etc already be a part of the underlying code-base?

Yes, but it's easier to remove code then to add it, lol. Should we do a new sim we will for sure not add the highly detailed crash modeling that RoF uses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Can't see why, it's a flight simulator, not a crash simulator.

well, I didn't mean like a crash simulator but like an effect, so if you hit a tree on landing your gear will smash off and you will have some trouble but I never said anything about having that effect just to have fun to crash but to make it more real for us enthusiasts for flying who are fx training for ppl and you want to practice making good landings.

Share this post


Link to post

well, I didn't mean like a crash simulator but like an effect, so if you hit a tree on landing your gear will smash off and you will have some trouble but I never said anything about having that effect just to have fun to crash but to make it more real for us enthusiasts for flying who are fx training for ppl and you want to practice making good landings.

I can't recall ANY stage in my PPL training when we practised crashing. Is it a new aspect to the training? Do you need to buy a parachute?

The consequences are usually dire. In my R&D days in the automotive/motorcycle industry we were expected to analyse crashes and often that's why we were employed - for that point-of-impact self-removed analysis, but it was never fun. Not ever. Often painful, sometimes confusing. But never `fun`... Can't think of any pilot who has enjoyed crashing. Got any examples?

This is my dispute with this thinking. If system resource are limited, as they always are, is it not better to simulate flying than crashing..? Mebbe it's just me? But the simulation of crashing is peurile, childish and pathetic. As well as a fundamental waste of those finite resources.

If we can't extend this concept of financial consequences Mathijs, then may I suggest an electrode attached to genitalia? Crash, and your knackers get fried. Crash once and it costs you a testicle. Crash twice and you never father children... I'm still working on the attachments for female simmers... but trust me! It's a WINNER! :blink:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can't recall ANY stage in my PPL training when we practised crashing. Is it a new aspect to the training? Do you need to buy a parachute?

The consequences are usually dire. In my R&D days in the automotive/motorcycle industry we were expected to analyse crashes and often that's why we were employed - for that point-of-impact self-removed analysis, but it was never fun. Not ever. Often painful, sometimes confusing. But never `fun`... Can't think of any pilot who has enjoyed crashing. Got any examples?

This is my dispute with this thinking. If system resource are limited, as they always are, is it not better to simulate flying than crashing..? Mebbe it's just me? But the simulation of crashing is peurile, childish and pathetic. As well as a fundamental waste of those finite resources.

If we can't extend this concept of financial consequences Mathijs, then may I suggest an electrode attached to genitalia? Crash, and your knackers get fried. Crash once and it costs you a testicle. Crash twice and you never father children... I'm still working on the attachments for female simmers... but trust me! It's a WINNER! :blink:

well in the meaning of during the PPL training I meant fx if you have a hard landing you crash, so then you have to improve, and I know that this will demand more computer power and other things but it would be nice to be able to do it like in FSX where you can turn crashes off and on, but still it is highly unlikely someone will do this for a FSX like Flight . so lets rest it here ok?

Share this post


Link to post

would be nice to be able to do it like in FSX where you can turn crashes off and on,

But can't you do that at present within FS?? Or, am I missing something within the settings of FS!! As I have (and others) stated, "if you want a shoot em up etcetera, go buy Combat Sim or something similar"....

Share this post


Link to post

But can't you do that at present within FS?? Or, am I missing something within the settings of FS!! As I have (and others) stated, "if you want a shoot em up etcetera, go buy Combat Sim or something similar"....

Precisely James. You already have consequences in FS - including damage from hard landings. Perhaps a subtle extension of the complexity of that particular section is in order, in keeping with the inevitable increased sophistication of a `next gen` sim product, but there are combat simulators a-plenty for those who pursue the ideals of virtual assassination as entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post

There have been some good responses to this topic, and as usual, some not so good...

If I was a commercial pilot flying say a 747 from Australia to London via Hong Kong and some dipstick in an F-16 desided to take me out I would have to buy the 747 again rather that the F-16 guy?? I certainly would be pi**** off with that when all I want to do is fly civil and not military, therefore, it's the pri^^ in the F-16 in my eyes has to repurchase his aircraft and not me.

According to the developer's website the combat add-on will only work in single player mode - no one flying the virtual skies in multiplayer need worry.

Ditto, a civilian flight simulator doesn't need the weaponology.

I don't think Microsoft ever stated that this is a civilian flight simulator...in fact, releasing the F/A 18 as part of the Acceleration add on demonstrates that the developer is making military add-on planes officially part of the experience.

Bullets and bombs are not for me, but I would take it a step further: Nor would be helping, assisting or supporting in any way anyone who adds this package to FSX.

Not for moral reasons, simply because the number of new elements this would introduce to the average troubleshoot would massively increase the complexity of sorting out a problem.

Those who think this is a good idea might want to consider the implications for such a `non-standard` package in the simulator and for future support for commercially-purchased products.

Interesting point, but consider the myriad of other developer's "sim within a sim" add-ons that add the same level of complexity...(A2A Accu-sim add-ons come to mind) - why single this one out?

And anyone who wants this `shoot `em up` experience in FSX is likely the kind of moron who would need hand-holding and helping more than real simmers... :ph34r::banghead1_s:

... for those who pursue the ideals of virtual assassination as entertainment.

Ah, but aren't bit and bytes virtually shooting down other bits and bytes much less harmful than the very real and tangible character assasination that occurs on these very boards all the time...Mr. Evans? -_-

Overall, I think what it comes down to is what each individual wants out of their FSX experience. Introducing this capability into FSX (to me, anyways) is no different than having FSX and Lock On installed and playing them both seperately. It doesn't make me an assassin, or a moron to introduce this capability in my sim experience, in fact it will probably be quite complex to master and achieve properly. I plan on introducing military AI traffic and flying in present-day "hot regions" around the globe, I personally think this will be a unique challenge in the FSX world. And since this is strictly a single player experience only, I am not harming or offending anyone, nor am I in any way diminishing anyone else's FSX enjoyment.

Now there was another sub-topic introduced in this thread; crash effects.

I can't recall ANY stage in my PPL training when we practised crashing. Is it a new aspect to the training? Do you need to buy a parachute?

Actually, commercial airline pilots do practice crash landings in their simulator training, FSX isn't just about private pilot training/flying.

It comes in handy for real world situations, just ask Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger!

well, I didn't mean like a crash simulator but like an effect, so if you hit a tree on landing your gear will smash off and you will have some trouble but I never said anything about having that effect just to have fun to crash but to make it more real for us enthusiasts for flying who are fx training for ppl and you want to practice making good landings.

I see your point here TF-197, like simulating this kind of landing (this obviously happens in the real world):

Perhaps a subtle extension of the complexity of that particular section is in order, in keeping with the inevitable increased sophistication of a `next gen` sim product

I do think this is a viable idea Simon, - one I hope would be suggested and considered in the Aerosoft next-gen flight sim forum.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Robert S you are fantastic! I couldn't have said anything of this better, and thank you in helping my case about the crash landings simulated effect for emergencies. And Snave you don't seem to get my point here really.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The whole argument makes me a little cross-eyed with perplexity! :o

So. We have all these "Civil" aviation planes, yet we also have tons of tenderly recreated F18's, A10's, F22's, F16's........

And even the carriers to land some of them on......

Its kind of like having a huge collection of hunting rifles that you take out and sight down the barrel of occasionally...... But are completely aghast at the thought of actually shooting them!

I am sure it all makes perfect sense, the underpinnings are just...... Interesting? :blink:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

The whole argument makes me a little cross-eyed with perplexity! :o

So. We have all these "Civil" aviation planes, yet we also have tons of tenderly recreated F18's, A10's, F22's, F16's........

And even the carriers to land some of them on......

Its kind of like having a huge collection of hunting rifles that you take out and sight down the barrel of occasionally...... But are completely aghast at the thought of actually shooting them!

I am sure it all makes perfect sense, the underpinnings are just...... Interesting? :blink:

So, by this measure of thinking FSX fails because it doesn't successfully model the blowing to smithereens of Afghan and Iraqi villages and the effects textures of severed heads and shattered limbs? I SO look forward to that recreation so that I can use my P-51 to strafe the locals and watch them die.

To make the point: MOST modern warplanes never fire a shot in anger. But also serve other `platform` purposes in the simulation genre. Realistically, military aviation represents only a small proportion of the total sim output. And to be specific, no modern airliners do Mach 2, no WWII vintage aircraft fly at 60,000 feet, no GA is carrier-qualified, and SAR is still a primarily-military operation, military aircraft are a necessity. But that is utterly irrelevant to the issue under discussion - COMBAT CAPABILITY.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Robert S you are fantastic! I couldn't have said anything of this better, and thank you in helping my case about the crash landings simulated effect for emergencies. And Snave you don't seem to get my point here really.

Then explain it to me in adult terms, please?

Can you actually provide a viable, meaningful justification for your `crash sim` requirement because for me, however you look at it, the aspect of physics modelling that is need of attention and improvement is the physics of flight, not lumping the aerial carriage and it's cargo into the scenery.

If you hit the scenery in the real world that days flying is most certainly over, possibly the aircrafts, possibly even the pilot and his passengers. Airliners do not crash well as real world events continue to prove, and when they do well the reason ALWAYS lies in the skill with which they were handled - or just plain old luck. Do you foresee the crash element including pilot qualifications and skills and a `dice factor`?

Are you going to model the different flashover rates of different aviation fuels and the melting temperatures of the different components?

Are you going to model blackened, wounded passengers staggering bloody and shocked from wreckage for your crash `realism` entertainment?

And just HOW does that improve the simming experience for ALL users, not just the very worst flyers who regard failure as worthy of expansion?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...