Combat capability in FSX - it's happening

[TF-197 28]

now Snave you are going a little bit further in the detail than I would be wanting in the sim, fx, people all around you wounded and the fuel all burning up with different colors. I'm just saying that it would just be like in Lock on, no people splattering around you with body parts flying. And also fx you said " If you hit the scenery in the real world that days flying is most certainly over " there are so many aircrafts that have landed safely after hitting something and getting damaged, and lets say the your engine/s goes out and you have to make an emergency landing, it would be nice to see how you got on, if you would have blown up because you had a very hard and bad landing or you would have made it for a good landing like Mr. Sullenberger. his landing could have gone tits up for some reason but he is good enough to land a plane on the water without anyone getting seriously injured or killed. we ( at least me ) don't want to see body parts, heads and limps flying around just the freaking airplane! you don't seem to get the we are only after the airplane effect not the people. And who does take a WWII plane to 60.000ft and who does fly an airliner at Mach 2+. And it is not quite true that crashes in real world are ALWAYS lies in the skill of the pilot, like in the Airbuses if the plane goes tits up there is not much that you can do because it is all controlled by computers.Like in a crash during final testing of a A320 which crashed during testing in 2008. And you cant seem to get that people at my age, 16 can make their case but some stubborns like you just don't seem to get it.

And the fact that I'm from Iceland writing all this in English makes it a lot harder for me to argue with you and I could say it all in Icelandic but in respect to you others I do it in English.

Birgir

[Hiflyer 129]

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 effcts 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.

This argument only works if the point is deliberately taken to extremes....... In fact its kind of a straw man.

Must racing Sims model wounded spectators in crashes? Do navel sims require severed arms in the water after a ship goes down? Should the Sims 2 model domestic violence and realistic bruises? One could argue that adding such effects would make people more aware of the consequences of their actions and etc, but is that really a simulation debate, or a political one?

There are levels of fidelity, and a plane deliberately ignoring the effects of a crash (which is a danger inherent in the very concept of human flight) is not a technical decision. Its a philosophical one. Some may consider it a valid choice, and most certainly Aerosoft itself, as the people fronting the money can make any decision they want. But there are also other segments of the market, and it seems currently that its being advocated to make a conscious decision to leave that market-segments money on the table.

Which makes ROF a bit of an..... Oddity?

My difficulty is in finding the logical consistency of the arguments against this. The vehemence is certainly in evidence, and politically I can respect that on its own, but the other justifications border on contrivance. Every single system of an aircraft is modeled: All tha' buttons work, smoke comes from the tires on touchdown.......

Electrical systems, lighting and shadowing and thousands of other affects are modeled in loving detail. And..... the guns are wooden props? Oh, and by the way, if the plane hits anything, it.... well it.... bounces? (Raises eyebrow)

OK.........

This is all academic to me, since I really don't have any horses running in this race. If I really want to blow things up, there are plenty of other entities that do want the cash. (including the company creating this add-on?) I am just fascinated trying to discern the logical parameters of this apparent aversion.

I will take it as a given that a good proportion of "hard-core" simmers would likely agree with not "polluting" the Sim with such things. I just wonder what the wider market will/would make of such fine distinctions.

Fighter planes that can't shoot.......

Why was that, again?

[Snave 466]

now Snave you are going a little bit further in the detail than I would be wanting in the sim, fx, people all around you wounded and the fuel all burning up with different colors. I'm just saying that it would just be like in Lock on, no people splattering around you with body parts flying. And also fx you said " If you hit the scenery in the real world that days flying is most certainly over " there are so many aircrafts that have landed safely after hitting something and getting damaged, and lets say the your engine/s goes out and you have to make an emergency landing, it would be nice to see how you got on, if you would have blown up because you had a very hard and bad landing or you would have made it for a good landing like Mr. Sullenberger. his landing could have gone tits up for some reason but he is good enough to land a plane on the water without anyone getting seriously injured or killed. we ( at least me ) don't want to see body parts, heads and limps flying around just the freaking airplane! you don't seem to get the we are only after the airplane effect not the people. And who does take a WWII plane to 60.000ft and who does fly an airliner at Mach 2+. And it is not quite true that crashes in real world are ALWAYS lies in the skill of the pilot, like in the Airbuses if the plane goes tits up there is not much that you can do because it is all controlled by computers.Like in a crash during final testing of a A320 which crashed during testing in 2008. And you cant seem to get that people at my age, 16 can make their case but some stubborns like you just don't seem to get it.

And the fact that I'm from Iceland writing all this in English makes it a lot harder for me to argue with you and I could say it all in Icelandic but in respect to you others I do it in English.

Birgir

So what you are saying is you cannot find a justified technical argument to include these irrelevant features? You just want then because they would be `cool`... hmm, thought so.

I gave you the examples as I did because I expect you to extrapolate from those and supply us with a justified reason why after hitting something there needs to be any more on-screen reaction than there already is? And now you (deliberately?) confuse `failure` modes with crashing. I guess the pointlessness of your fantasising is evident.

If you enable the standard FS function (you know the one...) in the aircraft.cfg file you get more than enough damage and detritus when you hit the ground or do something stupid but it actually IMPEDES on sim enjoyment as the presentation of those broken parts, smoke and fire DELAYS the reset of the sim. In other words the representation of unnecessary features actually impacts NEGATIVELY on the sim experience for all as it takes longer to get flying again - to remind you once more of the POINT of the simulation.

And you would seek to make that worse for no justifiable reason I can see. If you could state with any degree of technical support what this particular verisimilitude brings to the sim table as a benefit to the vast majority who don't crash, don't want the crash expereince to last longer and who don't see any point in loading a flight sim up with extraneous code garbage when it already has to meet the widest possible needs of the widest possible user base, whose common purpose is FLIGHT, not CRASH simulation then you might be able to get some support. Please tell us HOW you would expect modellers to combine the flying with the flying-off and onscreen representation of now-damaged parts without impacting on the fps, smoothness or gaming experience?

There is very good reason why the damage model is turned OFF in most aftermarket packages.

[Snave 466]

This argument only works if the point is deliberately taken to extremes....... In fact its kind of a straw man.

Must racing Sims model wounded spectators in crashes? Do navel sims require severed arms in the water after a ship goes down? Should the Sims 2 model domestic violence and realistic bruises? One could argue that adding such effects would make people more aware of the consequences of their actions and etc, but is that really a simulation debate, or a political one?

There are levels of fidelity, and a plane deliberately ignoring the effects of a crash (which is a danger inherent in the very concept of human flight) is not a technical decision. Its a philosophical one. Some may consider it a valid choice, and most certainly Aerosoft itself, as the people fronting the money can make any decision they want. But there are also other segments of the market, and it seems currently that its being advocated to make a conscious decision to leave that market-segments money on the table.

Which makes ROF a bit of an..... Oddity?

My difficulty is in finding the logical consistency of the arguments against this. The vehemence is certainly in evidence, and politically I can respect that on its own, but the other justifications border on contrivance. Every single system of an aircraft is modeled: All tha' buttons work, smoke comes from the tires on touchdown.......

Electrical systems, lighting and shadowing and thousands of other affects are modeled in loving detail. And..... the guns are wooden props? Oh, and by the way, if the plane hits anything, it.... well it.... bounces? (Raises eyebrow)

OK.........

This is all academic to me, since I really don't have any horses running in this race. If I really want to blow things up, there are plenty of other entities that do want the cash. (including the company creating this add-on?) I am just fascinated trying to discern the logical parameters of this apparent aversion.

I will take it as a given that a good proportion of "hard-core" simmers would likely agree with not "polluting" the Sim with such things. I just wonder what the wider market will/would make of such fine distinctions.

Fighter planes that can't shoot.......

Why was that, again?

Logic dictates that adding features adds complexity and possibility of error.

Logic dictates that setting the balance that is appropriate for the product is important. Logic - and commercial success - avers that the NON-aggressive Flight Sim genre has ALWAYS been more commercially successful than the equivalent `shoot 'em up` version.

As a counter argument one need only look at the current crop of combat flight simulators and ask why they don't, for example, replicate SIDS, STARS, full worldwide navaids, and massively seasonal and regional texture bases?

The answer is simple: System resources. They dedicate the finite resources to their key elements for their product and it's intentions in it's market, and don't try to be something they are not.

From a simple perspective I can see how superficial thinkers might believe that adding combat capability would broaden the appeal. But the sales figures show the opposite to be true. After that unless someone can come up with a decent financial study the pointlessness of it all really decries the need for further discussion.

It's not a moral argument. I actually don't care either way if I see severed heads and bodies blown limb-from-limb and bloodstains in the cockpit, but I do care if adding these things impacts in any way shape or form on my enjoyment of FSX which is about replicating the forms of flight that promote understanding, and mutual self-interest, education and entertainment.

To end this peripatetic perambulation around irrelevant feature focus let me just say that if someone were to come up with a way to include superior damage modelling in FSX to properly represent things that impact on aviating in the real world, like door locks that fail, inertia reel seatbelts, faulty air-conditioners, nicked and bent prop blades, hail damage (either in flight or while parked), buttons or switches that fall onto the cockpit floor, active-smell sick bags or anything else that didn't require interraction with bullet or bomb or collision with the scenery they'd have my support.

There's so much more that could be done with FSX. But combat isn't it...

[TF-197 28]

So what you are saying is you cannot find a justified technical argument to include these irrelevant features? You just want then because they would be `cool`... hmm, thought so.

I gave you the examples as I did because I expect you to extrapolate from those and supply us with a justified reason why after hitting something there needs to be any more on-screen reaction than there already is? And now you (deliberately?) confuse `failure` modes with crashing. I guess the pointlessness of your fantasising is evident.

If you enable the standard FS function (you know the one...) in the aircraft.cfg file you get more than enough damage and detritus when you hit the ground or do something stupid but it actually IMPEDES on sim enjoyment as the presentation of those broken parts, smoke and fire DELAYS the reset of the sim. In other words the representation of unnecessary features actually impacts NEGATIVELY on the sim experience for all as it takes longer to get flying again - to remind you once more of the POINT of the simulation.

And you would seek to make that worse for no justifiable reason I can see. If you could state with any degree of technical support what this particular verisimilitude brings to the sim table as a benefit to the vast majority who don't crash, don't want the crash expereince to last longer and who don't see any point in loading a flight sim up with extraneous code garbage when it already has to meet the widest possible needs of the widest possible user base, whose common purpose is FLIGHT, not CRASH simulation then you might be able to get some support. Please tell us HOW you would expect modellers to combine the flying with the flying-off and onscreen representation of now-damaged parts without impacting on the fps, smoothness or gaming experience?

There is very good reason why the damage model is turned OFF in most aftermarket packages.

Simple withe the problem if people don't like it. ON or OFF button

[Hiflyer 129]

Logic dictates that adding features adds complexity and possibility of error.

It might also dictate that deliberately deleting complexity and patching the resulting holes does the same.....

Logic dictates that setting the balance that is appropriate for the product is important. Logic - and commercial success - avers that the NON-aggressive Flight Sim genre has ALWAYS been more commercially successful than the equivalent `shoot 'em up` version.

Correct on the first part, but what exactly is that balance? And as far as the success of Non aggressive vs Aggressive and commercial: One might wonder then why the market keeps constantly producing more of one, while systematically abandoning the other........

As a counter argument one need only look at the current crop of combat flight simulators and ask why they don't, for example, replicate SIDS, STARS, full worldwide navaids, and massively seasonal and regional texture bases?

Perhaps partially due to the very market we were discussing: I can go to any major chain store right this instant and find many combat flight simulators of varying complexity. And some even have a copy or two of FSX

The answer is simple: System resources. They dedicate the finite resources to their key elements for their product and it's intentions in it's market, and don't try to be something they are not.

They follow the market. Also, are not system resources constantly increasing? Are there only certain "right" ways to take advantage of that fact? Following your own logic, it would likely be more honest to just remove all "aggressive" aircraft from the Sim. (creating my own straw man!)

I can see the disclaimer now: Note that while this product contains military aircraft of many types, it has been decided to curtail any use of such aircraft for violent activities. (Mass stampede as stores run in the other direction)

From a simple perspective I can see how superficial thinkers might believe that adding combat capability would broaden the appeal. But the sales figures show the opposite to be true. After that unless someone can come up with a decent financial study the pointlessness of it all really decries the need for further discussion.

Hmmmmm....... Speaking simply, I would say sales figures from where? Europe? America? Japan? Worldwide? The topic is a bit more complicated than at first blush. For instance, what is the average price (and lifespan) for a simulation game? Price of development vs potential profits? (especially on consoles) Ignoring the fact that such figures could probably be interpreted any number of ways, depending on where one decides to focus, I would still wonder why so many other companies have decided to abandon/ignore such a golden market......

One might also note that in some countries something like farm simulator sells quite well, but in others, such a Sim would be met with..... Utter perplexity. Again, sales figures from where?

It's not a moral argument. I actually don't care either way if I see severed heads and bodies blown limb-from-limb and bloodstains in the cockpit, but I do care if adding these things impacts in any way shape or form on my enjoyment of FSX which is about replicating the forms of flight that promote understanding, and mutual self-interest, education and entertainment.

Infinite diversity in infinite combination's. There are other people out there, and disagreement does not instantly mean irrelevance..........

For instance, I myself could really care less if the guns work or not. But, I realize that others might feel differently, and that others concerns can also have legitimacy, even if they do not match my own.

To end this peripatetic perambulation around irrelevant feature focus let me just say that if someone were to come up with a way to include superior damage modelling in FSX to properly represent things that impact on aviating in the real world, like door locks that fail, inertia reel seatbelts, faulty air-conditioners, nicked and bent prop blades, hail damage (either in flight or while parked), buttons or switches that fall onto the cockpit floor, active-smell sick bags or anything else that didn't require interraction with bullet or bomb or collision with the scenery they'd have my support.

It really does seem like another straw man, since the argument appears to be that if real life can't be replicated in every detail.... Then (in this case) the guns can't work. Not sure why one might insist that things be all or nothing. That's certainly not my argument.

There's so much more that could be done with FSX. But combat isn't it...

Infinite diversity......

[An-225 6]

I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with damage modelling in FSX. Not for "pretty" effects, but to actually deal with the problem in a realistic manner, rather than seeing a wonderful "CRASH" message because you over-G'd your airplane for a fraction of a second or brushed a tree while landing. That, I think, is an important part of flight. Not all flights proceed perfectly and uninhibited, and being given the chance to excercise skill and knowledge by dealing with the aforementioned damage would not be a terribly bad thing

I don't think combat is a horrible idea either. Few other flight sims actually provide a rendition of the entire world, and to my knowledge, there is not a single combat flight simulator out there that has the capability to do this. I think your views of combat are skewed, Snave. You seem to think that functioning ordnance is there simply to cater to the ADD generation, but it need not be an arcady "shoot 'em up" simulation of aerial combat. Just take a look at the complexity of DCS: Black Shark, to provide one example. I think you should reconsider your statement about people being morons for desiring combat in FSX...

Of course, I will concede that combat does not need to be the number one priority for such a flight sim by default, but it would be nice to have the capability to implement combat...opened up a little, so that add-on developers can later implement in-depth simulations of aerial warfare.

An-225 - currently using FSX to fly a Tu-22 across the Bering Strait against American Over-The-Horizon-Radars - an experience no other combat sim offers...

[bandsma 11]

I just want to do a little bit more beating of this dead horse.

An add-on that introduces combat to FSX is not debatable. It IS happening. So you can discuss it all you want but there is really nothing you can do except not buy it. The market will dictate if people want it or not.

Aerosoft as mentioned above is not interested in combat capability except maybe as separate product. So this whole debate is a moot point (US def).

About crash effects, crashes are already modeled in FSX and even some moderate damage is modeled (though not visually) such as destroying the front landing gear on hard landings. The desire for crash effects, at least for me, is that crashes could add more to having a scale of damage rather than binary. Like how A2A added a bit to the damage model with the J3 exhibiting the effects of prop strikes.

I think it is safe to say that most of us are into this hobby because we have a passion for flying but flying in the real world is an expensive proposition. So we want to learn as much as possible and fly as close as possible to what it would be like in the real world. I would appreciate a more complex damage model simply because I know that some of the landings I've pulled off in FSX would have likely resulted in some damage. Yet in FSX there are limited repercussions. It's hard to tell how bad of a landing you did by degree. If there was some sort of feedback on the severity of the damage incurred I think it would help us all improve our landings. Just as when A2A came out with Accu-Sim many people realized that how they were operating their plane in the sim would be severely damaging to the engine in real life. It's kind of the same idea.

I don't think anyone hear is advocating that they be able to crash into buildings and see explosions and body parts. More like people want to know; if they hit an obstacle does it total the plane or more simply require having a dent pounded out?

[Snave 466]

I just want to do a little bit more beating of this dead horse.

An add-on that introduces combat to FSX is not debatable. It IS happening. So you can discuss it all you want but there is really nothing you can do except not buy it. The market will dictate if people want it or not.

Aerosoft as mentioned above is not interested in combat capability except maybe as separate product. So this whole debate is a moot point (US def).

About crash effects, crashes are already modeled in FSX and even some moderate damage is modeled (though not visually) such as destroying the front landing gear on hard landings. The desire for crash effects, at least for me, is that crashes could add more to having a scale of damage rather than binary. Like how A2A added a bit to the damage model with the J3 exhibiting the effects of prop strikes.

I think it is safe to say that most of us are into this hobby because we have a passion for flying but flying in the real world is an expensive proposition. So we want to learn as much as possible and fly as close as possible to what it would be like in the real world. I would appreciate a more complex damage model simply because I know that some of the landings I've pulled off in FSX would have likely resulted in some damage. Yet in FSX there are limited repercussions. It's hard to tell how bad of a landing you did by degree. If there was some sort of feedback on the severity of the damage incurred I think it would help us all improve our landings. Just as when A2A came out with Accu-Sim many people realized that how they were operating their plane in the sim would be severely damaging to the engine in real life. It's kind of the same idea.

I don't think anyone hear is advocating that they be able to crash into buildings and see explosions and body parts. More like people want to know; if they hit an obstacle does it total the plane or more simply require having a dent pounded out?

I see your point. What I don't see how it relates to the need for combat capability as it's a long reach from dealing with inadvertent accident damage on a scaled response basis to deliberately inflicting such damage for entertainment value and thereby destroying one of the key values that has kept FS strong through some pressing times - I don't need to remind many here of the pressures brought to bear on the franchise in the aftermath of 9/11 when there was suggestion the terrorist cowards had `trained` on Flight Simulator. Personally, I think one of the key elements that helped the franchise survive was the absence of damage modelling and the out-and-out civilian, NON-militaristic nature of the product. If colliding with the twin towers in a 777 had been modelled to represent the damage to the towers, do you REALLY think we'd be here today?

Next, there were NO military combat sims released for at least a year after that date and MS got out of the combat business after CFS3. You can be sure that it was for commercial reasons and if there was value in converting code from FSX in CFS4 then MS would have done it.

The fact is, that as time goes by and the sim becomes more sophisticated, it's ability to absorb such rampant changes actually reduces.

I accept what you say that combat capability is coming, but equally I stand by what I said in that I will no longer have any interest in assisting any simmer who has the addon installed. Again, not for any moral reasons, but simply because if the level of sophistication is sufficient to do the claim of `combat` justice - things like separate ballistic profiles for each bullet, shell, bomb, rocket and missile, proper randomised damage based on an algorithm that also includes ADDING to any aircraft used in combat such things as the physical location of parts that are to be damaged that are currently simulated only in a virtual way - e.g. where are the radio boxes in an FS aircraft? and how are they connected to the panel display in the virtual world. And if they aren't there, or things like the hydraulic reservoir, pneumatic bottles, primary and backup operating systems, to name but a few, then your entire justification for complex damage modelling is moot, as this combat capability will NOT be providing what YOU are talking about. Will it?

In which case we are talking about non-specific code that will interract with sim-specific code in an unclear and undefined way. And I don't want to even think about how much trouble that will cause.

[peejayh 0]

I see your point. What I don't see how it relates to the need for combat capability as it's a long reach from dealing with inadvertent accident damage on a scaled response basis to deliberately inflicting such damage for entertainment value and thereby destroying one of the key values that has kept FS strong through some pressing times - I don't need to remind many here of the pressures brought to bear on the franchise in the aftermath of 9/11 when there was suggestion the terrorist cowards had `trained` on Flight Simulator. Personally, I think one of the key elements that helped the franchise survive was the absence of damage modelling and the out-and-out civilian, NON-militaristic nature of the product. If colliding with the twin towers in a 777 had been modelled to represent the damage to the towers, do you REALLY think we'd be here today?

Next, there were NO military combat sims released for at least a year after that date and MS got out of the combat business after CFS3. You can be sure that it was for commercial reasons and if there was value in converting code from FSX in CFS4 then MS would have done it.

The fact is, that as time goes by and the sim becomes more sophisticated, it's ability to absorb such rampant changes actually reduces.

I accept what you say that combat capability is coming, but equally I stand by what I said in that I will no longer have any interest in assisting any simmer who has the addon installed. Again, not for any moral reasons, but simply because if the level of sophistication is sufficient to do the claim of `combat` justice - things like separate ballistic profiles for each bullet, shell, bomb, rocket and missile, proper randomised damage based on an algorithm that also includes ADDING to any aircraft used in combat such things as the physical location of parts that are to be damaged that are currently simulated only in a virtual way - e.g. where are the radio boxes in an FS aircraft? and how are they connected to the panel display in the virtual world. And if they aren't there, or things like the hydraulic reservoir, pneumatic bottles, primary and backup operating systems, to name but a few, then your entire justification for complex damage modelling is moot, as this combat capability will NOT be providing what YOU are talking about. Will it?

In which case we are talking about non-specific code that will interract with sim-specific code in an unclear and undefined way. And I don't want to even think about how much trouble that will cause.

[peejayh 0]

It's always interesting to read about others feelings and preferences on the subject of flight sim, even if quite often I can't follow the technical intricacies of their arguments. The beauty of it for me is that I can make it as easy or as difficult as I want. There are lads in the monthly flight sim group I go to who are former real life pilots and they would cringe at the basic style I adopt for most of my flights. Many folks I've come across like to perform their flights in a certain way and I normally learn something from each of them. There are so many levels of "make-believe" and if you find it easy to suspend belief you can really imagine yourself at five thousand feet with the whole world as your lobster!!! I've been too apprehensive to bring in the Flight Sim School and have someone tear my procedure and operation to shreds. You can't beat being sat beside someone and watching and learning and asking questions. I find that is the best way for me to pick things up.

So on the subject of combining combat with civil I'm on the fence. I probably would enjoy blasting a lonely windmill with a machine gun from my trusty Cessna now and again or even making a mess of the Severn Bridge from a Lancaster but I don't feel strongly either way. I enjoy it as it is and there's a lot more to learn.