VRS TacPack released

[JB3DG]

I meant the FSX SDK combined with the TACPAC SDK. SimConnect would deal with the AI triggers and such. Bottom line of any AI system is to control the direction of flight which means that the actual AI logic would have to be written from scratch. TACPAC SDK would just be the means the arm them. As a full time developer, I can assure you it is possible.

 

@aaron

It would be no different than when you have your AI traffic sliders around 20-30%. Good frames are still possible.

 

Bottom line: The only limits are skill and imagination. Which until recently very few FSX devs have had. Thats why these misconceptions about FSX limitations exist.

[WynnTTr]

I meant the FSX SDK combined with the TACPAC SDK. SimConnect would deal with the AI triggers and such. Bottom line of any AI system is to control the direction of flight which means that the actual AI logic would have to be written from scratch. TACPAC SDK would just be the means the arm them. As a full time developer, I can assure you it is possible.

 

@aaron

It would be no different than when you have your AI traffic sliders around 20-30%. Good frames are still possible.

 

Bottom line: The only limits are skill and imagination. Which until recently very few FSX devs have had. Thats why these misconceptions about FSX limitations exist.

 

Way to diss nearly every dev that's worked on FSX. I might just quote this on the A2A, VRS, PMDG forums to see what they think of it.

 

I'd love to see your attempt then. Put your money where your mouth is.

[JB3DG]

Way to diss nearly every dev that's worked on FSX. I might just quote this on the A2A, VRS, PMDG forums to see what they think of it.

 

I'd love to see your attempt then. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

Diss? I said FEW. Take note. FEW. Out of all the FSX devs out there, is 3 or 4 a lot? I also said "until recently"....which means more devs are starting to think outside of the box. Please do not misquote me like that. Besides the point was not how lacking in skill some devs are, the point was that a lot of these "limitations" and "difficulties" are actually misconceptions.

Edited January 15, 2013 by JB3DG

[aaron886]

The only limits are skill and imagination ... Thats why these misconceptions about FSX limitations exist.

 

Wait... bad multiplayer is just a misconception?! Where's the "good multiplayer" checkbox, I seem to be missing it!! :D

[JB3DG]

Try using a VPN like Wippien. I have a 384Kb/sec cellphone (I am in South Africa) connection and it is lagless with TACPAC over Wippien. :D

Edited January 15, 2013 by JB3DG

[blkspade]

There aren't any misconceptions about FSX. As a core sim, its so terribly inefficient. The comparison between it and DCS are basically, that DCS does/offers a lot in a relatively small combat area, while FSX does a whole lot of nothing in a whole lot of space. Add the fact that the total area to be potentially cached into memory is certainly going to be smaller in FSX. While the DCS engine is also inefficient with modern resources in its own way, at least the core code is actually still being worked on. I feel the biggest problem the both share is likely to be limitation of the DX9 API. ARMA II probably manages to make the best use of it and modern hardware while also being large in scale, and its still far from perfect.

[Kenan]

Yes but then they go out and actually fight in real life combat environments in real conflicts.

 

Only a very small percentage of pilots get to actually experience real combat during the course of their career.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Kenan

[Subliminal-SS]

Apparently if you need the payware version of FSUIPC in order to map your controls. I've already put quite a lot of money in FSX and I only got the game for a week now.

So if I can do it in Target, for free, I'll do it, even if it's a PITA.

Or I'll check cichlidfan suggestion

 

Thanks !

 

This is correct you do require the payware version. However despite this it is still my favourite Configurator. Maybe because its so "In Game"

 

But Amen to not wasting money!

[Steel Jaw]

It's just too early to say.

 

We need to wait and see what FSX@war can do.

 

DCS has its own share of issues.

[aaron886]

That's an interesting perspective! (Especially from Mower. :D)

[Cali]

I think his old age is catching up to him.

[Agg]

I think his old age is catching up to him.

Too old to wait for DCS: Fast jet? ;)

[Cali]

Too old to wait for DCS: Fast jet? ;)

 

Lol, he seems to have become nicer in his old age. :clown_2:

[cichlidfan]

That's an interesting perspective! (Especially from Mower. :D)

 

You should take a gander at his sig on Frugals. ;)

[Steel Jaw]

Too old to wait for DCS: Fast jet? ;)

 

Would like to know what it is before I die. :P

[astrospud]

There aren't any misconceptions about FSX. As a core sim, its so terribly inefficient. The comparison between it and DCS are basically, that DCS does/offers a lot in a relatively small combat area, while FSX does a whole lot of nothing in a whole lot of space. Add the fact that the total area to be potentially cached into memory is certainly going to be smaller in FSX. While the DCS engine is also inefficient with modern resources in its own way, at least the core code is actually still being worked on. I feel the biggest problem the both share is likely to be limitation of the DX9 API. ARMA II probably manages to make the best use of it and modern hardware while also being large in scale, and its still far from perfect.

 

I'd like to point out the ATC is much more developed in FSX and with VATSIM environments - esp. VATSIM military by some groups - the whole organisation of sorties in any part of the world will be more realistic, from a communications point of view.

 

Imagine simulating a strike on a power station or like infrastructure from bases anywhere in the world to (insert rogue nation here). :D

The only thing that is lacking as far as I can tell is the big picture provided by AWAC.

[aaron886]

I must say ATC is fun, but good ATC in FSX is not AI... it's people. VATSIM is not FSX. (However awesome it may be!)

[Sorin]

I have been doing VRS SB and the stock F18 with 5 screens using 4 computers for FSX with wideview (one 2560*1600 and 4 1920*1200). Lots of money and work but the FPS results were not that great. But the heat in summer made me consider a dedicated air con unit for the room :wallbash:

 

Now I use only one of those computers driving 4 screens with DCS A-10C 64 bit under Win8 and I am much happier.

DCS has a much better simulation engine IMHO. FSX is CPU limited, even with overclocking.

 

Also the military simulation in DCS is so far ahead of anything currently in FSX that is not even worth talking about.

 

I will wait for the Hornet in DCS, no problem. Or whatever will come.

:beer:

[SUBS17]

I've been doing SEAD missions with the VRS SH using HARMs its quite interesting learning all the stuff most sims don't model such as the PB mode aircraft lofting HARMs. You can either pull up yourself or get the HARM to LOFT for max range itself which is cool.

 

 

Closing on tgt, pulling up.

 

 

"MAGNUM"

 

 

Now break off and let the missiles do their thing.

[Steel Jaw]

As an aside, the best ATC continues to be Falcon4/BMS. Period.

[Eight Ball]

Successfully landing the superbug without killing myself and everyone around :P

 

 

I find it fairly easy to land the T-45C or the S-2, a bit harder with the F-14D and a lot harder with the VRS Superbug.

At low speed she's a capricious lady...

Edited February 2, 2013 by Eight Ball

[Steel Jaw]

Yeah even with a good trap it does the funky chicken at the end of the trap...dunno why.

[Eight Ball]

Only happens to me when I'm coming in too fast. Slow down Mower !

:D

[aaron886]

The pitch response of the VRS Super Bug is so bad. You should give yourself a hearty congratulations if you can make consistent recoveries.

[astrospud]

Anyone use ATC?

 

EDIT: just to clarify - Auto throttle