|
Post by StuB on Mar 18, 2020 14:07:18 GMT -5
I think Bazzar's comments were directed more at the FSX community, which has never really had much of a hard-core combat flight simulator desire. Also, look at the average age of the FSX users on Sim-Outhouse. Most of them are living on retirement pensions and have a fixed income.
If you look at other combat simulators, such as DCS or even ArmA (for helicopter simulation) the average user most definitely wants complex systems and add-0ns. I also think the average age of these users is much lower than the FSX/P3D users.
What really sets P3D (and FSX to a lesser degree) apart is that we have the whole world as our environment. Now that it is possible to have aircraft and systems that are on a similar level to those in the other sims, there may very well be a new influx of hard core simmers who want what the majority of FSX users do not.
|
|
|
Post by StuB on Mar 18, 2020 14:38:17 GMT -5
By the way, speaking of scenarios,I have been collecting info on virtually every mission that was flown in Southeast Asia, as well as all of the locations of all the SAM sites and official targets in North Vietnam and Laos. I feel like my dream of having a hyper-realistic Southeast Asia environment is finally going to be possible. Sometime in the near future, this mission could be completely re-created from start to finish in P3D/FSX ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ihI7VU2OY .... Of course the whole mission would take 22 hours and require multiple air refuelings but technically, it could be done with FSX/P3D.
|
|
|
Post by edakridge on Mar 18, 2020 15:06:02 GMT -5
StuB, you are quite right about the age of the SOH faithful. While most of us are geriatrics we are not as fickle as the millennials, who lose interest in anything that requires effort in an incredibly short time. This is the market that I believe AH is aiming for. The Control-Easy planes will require no learning to operate. If this is indeed the market that they are targeting I fear that they will be badly disappointed as the young consumers abandon FSX/P3D for the next shiny thing down the line.
|
|
|
Post by xpel on Mar 18, 2020 16:36:54 GMT -5
I agree with observations of both of you guys. But aging, is just another reason for people to prefer less complex things. Youngsters have the sharp mind & sharp interest for complexity that will challenge them. On the other hand, this doesnot apply for all youngsters. There are many young people that prefer less complex but immersive simulation. Either way, there is a place for combat simming with FS.
My point was about this though : "Now that it is possible to have aircraft and systems that are on a similar level to those in the other sims..." I don't know about P3DV4, but architecture of previous versions, does not allow in my opinion complex, advanced planes to be used for combat simming in FS, dew to limitations in processing ability when added numerous simobjects (like FSCAI tracers, AI Traffic), effects, external programms runing, Tacpack, etc. FS is just not designed for this. While dedicated combat sims are.
So, one of the ways I see as a workaround to this disadvantage, are less complex planes, leaving a processing margin for the addons needed for combat simulation. And not having a clickable cockpit, reduces cpu processing load.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Stub, I'm interested for such info, regarding F-8 /A-4 RL missions, combo prefferably, period 1967 -70. It's my current project. I didn't manage to hold myself and bought Gimots Essex class carriers. Today I had my first sortie from USS Hancock down town Hanoi and my AIs A-4s & F-8s have same liveries with the static on deck ones !... immersive.
|
|
|
Post by StuB on Mar 18, 2020 19:59:30 GMT -5
Most of the Millennial's are definitely not into "complex" anything. The are into push button, AI controlled, gadgetry that does what ever they want for them. Robots, self driving cars and aircraft ... you name it.
The "control easy" idea is fine with me though.... especially if they decide to offer a "complex" version of the same aircraft at a later point. I am just a couple months from turning 55 and I have already begun noticing that my memory is not quite as "sharp" as it used to be. So, I actually like the more intricate systems modeling that you get with complex add-on airplanes because they give me a fun way to exercise my brain. Back when I still had DCS installed on my system, I used to go through the A-10C startup procedures every morning before I started my day.... with the challenge of being ready to taxi out of the chocks before the wingman rolls out of his.....which reminds me that I should re-install it on the new PC now.
Xpel, you are right about FSX struggling with numerous simobjects, but I don't think you realize how much better P3D is compared to FSX. I have P3D and FSX installed on my new computer. I get between 40 and 60 fps in FSX and when I run P3Dv4, I get between 150 and 200 fps.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch Owen on Mar 18, 2020 20:48:06 GMT -5
I really appreciate these deep discussions, it helps to suggest guidance for FSCAI development - what to aim for, and what to put on the back burner.
Because FSX/P3D will support a wide range of simulation depth, from the CTRL-E simple to the very accurate and complex, we need to be agnostic when it comes to the complexity of the systems and, to the extent possible, even the FDE which will vary greatly in quality from sim airplane to sim airplane.
Whatever we add for the purpose of making things more realistic, we can't ever forget that at a very basic level we need to keep it fun and functional.
We should never consider this system to be a competitor to dedicated combat sims because it can never compete with their features.
Instead we're trying to deliver as much realism as we can given the limitations of the sim engine we're working with.
Dutch
|
|
|
Post by StuB on Mar 19, 2020 0:07:15 GMT -5
I don't think things are as limited as they seem. It wasn't so long ago that people were saying that the things developers like you and the guys at SWS, VRS and Milviz are doing was impossible. So, who knows what will become possible in the future.
I think the only thing that really keeps FSX/P3D from being a dedicated combat sim is the issue of being able to enforce flight models. While Tacpack "sort of" tries to give an ability to do this, it's not 100% fool proof. To me, it doesn't matter all that much if flight models are not 100 realistic.... I just want them to be reasonable. I'm never going to try to turn fight a MiG-17 in a F-105D, so as long as the MiG's flight model limits it's top speed to Mach 1.04, I'm OK with it, since I will hopefully be running away from it at Mach 2.15.
In the end, it will be the community members who decide how realistic the airplanes will be when they engage in military simulation. The groups that want a high level of realism will likely make sure they each have airplanes with accurate flight models before they spar with each other. They will also probably try to enforce the same with their AI.
Whats so great is that we are now getting the ability to chose what we want.
|
|
|
Post by edakridge on Mar 19, 2020 4:22:10 GMT -5
Xpel, you are absolutely right about the limitations of FSX and 32 bit P3D. That is the primary reason that I went 64 bit and that ISN'T a cure all because all FSX based sims are processor dependent rather than utilizing your graphics card. I can only speak about one current combat sim and that is DCS. As each new incarnation of DCS comes out it requires more and more resources and is to the point now that I can barely run it on my computer. (I7-4770/16 GB RAM/GTX970) DCS is primarily RAM dependent and runs best on 64+ GB of RAM. While P3Dv4 is more advanced than it's predecessors it didn't fix all of the ailments of being designed around a 14 year old program. (FSX) Everyone needs to realize that P3D was not designed for the gaming community and Lockheed Martin really doesn't listen to the gaming community's opinion. Their primary concern is pleasing their main customer, the U.S. Military. It was designed as a teaching tool for primary flight training and for that it's quite adequate. In my opinion what has happened is that professionals have done with FSX what amateurs did with Falcon BMS. As to how well each individuals computer can run these combat mods for FSX/P3D/P3Dv4 is up to what equipment that you are running and how well you have it optimized.
|
|
|
Post by StuB on Mar 19, 2020 12:23:36 GMT -5
Good point, Ed. What has given me such a huge improvement in frame rate is not a better GPU.....its that I got a better motherboard and processor.
|
|
|
Post by xpel on Mar 20, 2020 0:38:48 GMT -5
Good point, Ed. What has given me such a huge improvement in frame rate is not a better GPU.....its that I got a better motherboard and processor. This costs money... a lot. So the other way around, ie simpler planes, suits better most of the people... I rate this "Ctrl/ezy" concept of planes, as the most suitable planes for combat flying in FS for the less diminished performance in "FS combat environment" (FSCAI/FSX@War/AI Traffic) for a fluid flying experience.I mean, even with F-8 of FRN, onboard Gimot's carriers, while in external views runs like water (24,9 FPS locked) on the carrier, when inside VC and looking around, frames drop under 20 and it's distinctive. Same goes with Cattaneo's F-14D. And yes, these planes are oriented towards the fun side of simming. But we simmers that use FSCAI/FSX@War are already oriented towards the fun side, ie combat simming. Still, complex plane simulations will always be there, for users wishing for them or have the powerfull pc's to run them without killing immersion.
|
|
|
Post by hajolippke on Mar 20, 2020 9:05:53 GMT -5
Checked today the dog-fighting skillz of my A10 and of hostile A10. Well, I was downed very quick on the first encounter by AIM9. On the second encounter the hostile A10 was distracted by ground units and began attacking them. It killed a couple of vehicles and then I was on her 6 o'clock position. She flew straight and level, until I had put enough 30mm rounds in her to sink to the ground... So, the self defence modus of the A10 needs to be improved... HAJO
|
|
|
Post by StuB on Mar 20, 2020 18:35:45 GMT -5
Sure it costs money, but the prices are starting to come down as new hardware is emerging.....so not as much as before. Most simmers chase after the latest and greatest video card, but my advice to them is to upgrade everything EXCEPT the video card right now. Aeroplane Heaven's "Ctrl Ezy" idea is not much different that what we end up with when we convert FS2004 ariplanes for FSX and P3D.... so I wouldn't say it was really a new concept, except maybe for them. What is unfortunate is that they are apparently prejudiced against combat simming and therefore won't make it easy to Tacpack their airplanes. For me, I prefer the complex airplanes..... but if I can't get that, then I'm OK with something that is less complex. I love flying the SWS F-4B and the Milviz F-100D. I also really like flying the Alphasim RF-101C that I converted (and added Tacpack RWR receiver and chaff/flares). I barely has a functioning VC, but it has anough for me to blast over North Vietnam and avoid SAM's and AAA. This costs money... a lot. So the other way around, ie simpler planes, suits better most of the people... I rate this "Ctrl/ezy" concept of planes, as the most suitable planes for combat flying in FS for the less diminished performance in "FS combat environment" (FSCAI/FSX@War/AI Traffic) for a fluid flying experience.I mean, even with F-8 of FRN, onboard Gimot's carriers, while in external views runs like water (24,9 FPS locked) on the carrier, when inside VC and looking around, frames drop under 20 and it's distinctive. Same goes with Cattaneo's F-14D. And yes, these planes are oriented towards the fun side of simming. But we simmers that use FSCAI/FSX@War are already oriented towards the fun side, ie combat simming. Still, complex plane simulations will always be there, for users wishing for them or have the powerfull pc's to run them without killing immersion.
|
|
|
Post by hajolippke on Mar 29, 2020 8:16:47 GMT -5
A question concerning IR-guided missiles: What works best to fool them: The FSCAI-flares or TacPack-flares?
HAJO
|
|
|
Post by Dutch Owen on Mar 29, 2020 11:39:18 GMT -5
A question concerning IR-guided missiles: What works best to fool them: The FSCAI-flares or TacPack-flares? HAJO Both are looked for and both work equally well. Dutch
|
|
|
Post by hajolippke on Mar 29, 2020 11:47:35 GMT -5
Good to know, thanks!
HAJO
|
|