VRS TacPack released

[aaron886]

I never get tired of launch and trap

 

Me neither! :)

 

 

 

 

Boy that's a lot of cut passes. :D

[SUBS17]

Just to pitch in here, because I have a fair amount of knowledge of the handling and performance characteristics of the Hornet... the FM is presently pretty poor. That is not to disparage VRS or their work. We all know they work miracles! I talked to Jon Blum, VRS's lead developer. He confirmed my abbreviated list of gripes as known problems and said they were to be corrected in the Pro update. I hope they do. My primary complaint is the pitch dampening and FCS implentation of the longitudinal CAS loop. (Hard to say what they've done under the hood, but it's not operating as it should for whatever reason.) Roll inertia (limitation of FSX) and spool-time (possibly another FSX problem) are a bit disappointing as well.

 

As I said, though, it seems Jon and VRS know what they want to do with the jet, everything just takes time. (I can relate.)

 

 

 

 

It is pretty bad. Hopefully they'll work on that.

 

Yeah in my view that is not something I've noticed as I do not have that much knowledge on the SH handling aside the UA/PA modes and some of its behaviour. What I do like though is its requirement for minor trim inputs unlike earlier versions of Falcon 4 which never required it the SH is more realistic in that area. As for spool time is that related to the engine lag when opening the throttle? I'm definately interested in the Pro version and hopefully one day a Prepare3d version. One thing I have heard is you will be able to depart the Pro version(as difficult as it is in a SH) and its FM is completely separate from FSX.(I might need more ram for my PC if its going to be that much more detailed)

 

Good to know! That's one of the things that always drove me nuts about FSX. When I was flying the Superbug regularly in FSX with VUSN, I ended up editing the .air file to reduce roll inertia.

 

I heard tell that VRS might be disconnecting their flight model from FSX entirely, and running it externally? (If that's the case guys, just up and develop the thing for DCS already! :D)

 

 

We can only wish for a DCS version from ED, Coretexdesigns is already doing a SH for DCS but VRS is more like competition to ED with Tacpac so its more likely they won't do a DCS version.

 

Sorry Subs, with a FM that's acknowledged that "is good enough" I'd say VRS aren't quite there yet. It's getting there yes but not yet.

 

But yeah.. it's the Hornet, where's ED's fast jet?

 

 

Its still the best FM ever for FSX IMO and much better than the acceleration hornets FM.

Edited January 9, 2013 by SUBS17

[astrospud]

Me neither! :)

 

 

 

 

Boy that's a lot of cut passes. :D

 

Yup, that confirms that I do, indeed, suck at CV ops :D.

 

Love it though, and I will resolve to get better. :pilotfly:

[astrospud]

Just on a side note, I'm reading Tom Clancy's Threat Vector at the moment and it's got some wicked carrier based combat in it. Definitely recommend.

[aaron886]

Just on a side note, I'm reading Tom Clancy's Threat Vector at the moment and it's got some wicked carrier based combat in it. Definitely recommend.

 

Thanks for the recommendation. Clancy usually does a pretty good job on his research.

[SUBS17]

Just on a side note, I'm reading Tom Clancy's Threat Vector at the moment and it's got some wicked carrier based combat in it. Definitely recommend.

 

What year is it set and what aircraft are in it?

[astrospud]

No year defined, but very close to current events. Speaks of China's expansion in the South China Seas and military engagements there.

I'm only 3/4 finished but details a fight between Marine pilots from the Regan in legacy hornets against Chinese Super J10's. Also mentions Superhornets.

[Eight Ball]

VRS is more like competition to ED with Tacpac so its more likely they won't do a DCS version.

With all due respect to the VRS team I don't see FSX+tacpack coming anywhere close to what DCS is offering in the next couple of years.

 

The SB and TP are outstanding, I haven't touch DCS since I got them and probably wont play much before the next Hi-Fi module but in terms of combat simulation DCS offers much more than that.

In a short amount of time it became the undisputed reference of air combat simulation. Anyone who has a clue knows about it.

 

DCS has an unscripted AI capable of fighting anywhere on the map, be it on land, water or in the air. It's also featuring dozens of planes, choppers, boat and ground vehicles models to populate the map and fight against.

 

This is obviously something the VRS team forgot when they mention their surprise to see that, with such a large team, ED is only pulling off such a small number of Hi-Fi modules.

 

VRS is at the boundaries of what is possible in FSX, on the other hand we haven't seen yet what DCS is capable of.

 

 

Now that I'm more familiar with FSX I must say I don't understand VRS choice to remain on that platform.

Within the next year, maybe 2 years, we should see a dozen of flyable and -hopefully- high fidelity aircraft in DCS.

That's going to make it a lot more attractive. If you add to that the long awaited EDGE, things aren't going to be easy for VRS.

 

I know that horse has been beaten to death, I'm just saying I find it a little bit dangerous to place all your money on the uncertain future of Prepar3d.

Especially with such an effective and well established competitor as DCS.

 

Going to make some cats and traps on the Ike :pilotfly:

Edited January 13, 2013 by Eight Ball

[astrospud]

we should see a dozen of flyable and -hopefully- high fidelity aircraft in DCS.

That's going to make it a lot more attractive. If you add to that the long awaited EDGE, things aren't going to be easy for VRS.

 

It should also be mentioned that the VRS team are working on an SDK to allow for other a/c to be modded into viable combat simulations.

 

And while the host of great new simulations are being developed for DCS by 3rd parties, there are only a few that I can see that fit in the FC3 theatre environment; Strike Eagle, Typhoon, AV-8B...and maybe the BAE Hawk and Talon for training missions.

 

With an VRS SDK for the SB in development, there's bound to be small time devs (and maybe larger studios, who knows!) just chomping on the bit to mod their jets to be adversaries to the SB.

 

Personally, I'd like to see that! :D

[jctrnacty]

I must say i am surprised that VRS stick with FSX platform. If they could make a DCS SB then they would earn a lot of money.

 

They have all necessary know how and they could use the advantage of better FM in DCS. ITS Strange to me.

 

All people here are waiting for Naval ops and they could deliver. too bad for us with their rigidity.

[aaron886]

with such a large team, ED is only pulling off such a small number of Hi-Fi modules.

 

ED is not a large team.

 

 

Now that I'm more familiar with FSX I must say I don't understand VRS choice to remain on that platform.

 

Me neither. :noexpression:

[Ripcord]

I must say i am surprised that VRS stick with FSX platform. If they could make a DCS SB then they would earn a lot of money.

 

They have all necessary know how and they could use the advantage of better FM in DCS. ITS Strange to me.

 

All people here are waiting for Naval ops and they could deliver. too bad for us with their rigidity.

 

You use the term rigid. I use the term determined. They set a goal for themselves a long time ago, and they completed it. It took them longer than they thought, but they did it. I respect them for that.

 

Does DCS World have a lot more to offer than FSX, in terms of modelling combat operations? Certainly it does. Like you I was also hoping they would eventually make this transition. But they are only 3 guys, so they have to remain very focused. I think for right now they have enough to keep themselves busy.

 

This discussion makes me think of a question. I wonder how many folks purchased FSX in comparison with the number that have purchased at least one of the DCS World modules. My guess is that FSX is a much larger target audience -- though I could be wrong.

[Eight Ball]

ED is not a large team.

 

I know but this is what they wrote on their wiki, it's in the introduction under the point "what took you so long".

Take for example another consumer-oriented simulation-developer creating stand-alone simulations; Eagle Dynamics. The last I heard they've got roughly fifty employees, and that's a direct comparison to a company with similarly oriented products with similar feature sets. While the Superbug is certainly not the type of simulation that can compete in a mission-based/game play-oriented environment where content is tailored to the aircraft and missions, it is none the less a competitively featured aircraft systems simulation (to for example A-10 Warthog).

I know I've connected the dots and maybe I shouldn't have.

The point I was trying to make is that ED is in charge of much more than a single aircraft and its weapons systems, which is something they obviously forgot when they made that comment.

 

Once again, I have great respect for VRS and what they did is no less than a revolution for FSX.

 

With an VRS SDK for the SB in development, there's bound to be small time devs (and maybe larger studios, who knows!) just chomping on the bit to mod their jets to be adversaries to the SB.

Very true. But no matter what they are still "fighting" against an outdated, poorly optimized and unadapted engine. This is something DCS 3rd parties don't have to worry about.

 

I wonder how many folks purchased FSX in comparison with the number that have purchased at least one of the DCS World modules. My guess is that FSX is a much larger target audience -- though I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what VRS is offering is really that appealing to the FSX crowd.

I've browsed many FSX fan site and the "VRS coverage" is quite small.

 

Again, don't get me wrong I'm not here to start a stupid flamewar between VRS and DCS.

I'm just voicing some concerns. I'd be sad to see such a talented team slowly fade away because they didn't make the "jump" fast enough, even if it is for good reasons.

 

Nobody can predict the future but DCS future seems fairly bright and fairly safe in comparison to the FSX/prepar3d one.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Eight Ball

[SUBS17]

With Tacpac they can arm anything for mp even ships, tanks, helicopters etc. So there is alot more potential in MP on a Global map. As for Prepare3d it may even allow for submarine warfare although I am unsure as to what Lockhead is going to do with Prepare3d in the future with V2 in the works maybe that will be where we wind up seeing Tacpac at its full potential. With DCS World it is not ideal for Strategic combat operations and the map is a bit small for Naval combat ops so it might be that such mods could be used for that purpose on FSX/Prepare3d. Either way you look at it there is plenty of hard drive space on my PC for both FSX/Tacpac and DCS World.:thumbup:

 

BTW there is already a Superhornet being developed for DCS World.:smilewink:

[aaron886]

Adding weapons and rudimentary AI does not a combat simulator make. Not to me, anyway.

 

I'm not saying (as I always reiterate) that I don't like the work VRS does... I just wish it wasn't done in FSX. They deserve a better platform.

[Ranger79]

Adding weapons and rudimentary AI does not a combat simulator make. Not to me, anyway.

 

I'm not saying (as I always reiterate) that I don't like the work VRS does... I just wish it wasn't done in FSX. They deserve a better platform.

 

Nicely put.

[SUBS17]

Adding weapons and rudimentary AI does not a combat simulator make. Not to me, anyway.

 

I'm not saying (as I always reiterate) that I don't like the work VRS does... I just wish it wasn't done in FSX. They deserve a better platform.

 

I agree they definately could do with a better platform something like what FighterOps would do maybe Prepare3d V2 might be the solution.

[Ripcord]

Adding weapons and rudimentary AI does not a combat simulator make. Not to me, anyway.

 

I'm not saying (as I always reiterate) that I don't like the work VRS does... I just wish it wasn't done in FSX. They deserve a better platform.

 

They added weapons. They did not add any AI. But generally speaking, I could not agree more.

 

The work is nothing short of amazing, all things considered but it cannot be considered a combat simulator -- a good start MAYBE.

 

If you aren't flying in MP, then there really isn't much to it. Hopefully FSX@war will make a difference, but without some kind of mission editor / object placement interface, I find it lacking. It is really a great training flight simulator, if you wanted to practice making training hops to and from a weapons range. I just don't care much for having to place my own SAM theats to evade, as player, in game. Not at compelling for me in its current state. Hoping it will continue to evolve.

[aaron886]

I agree they definately could do with a better platform something like what FighterOps would do maybe Prepare3d V2 might be the solution.

FighterOps? Why bring them up...? I think you're lookin' for love in all the wrong places, SUBS. ;)

 

 

They added weapons. They did not add any AI. But generally speaking, I could not agree more.

Rudimentary. They can make airplanes fly simple flight patterns and SAMs will fire at you if you enter a trigger zone... is that not correct?

 

Hoping it will continue to evolve.

Me too, I just hope it evolves somewhere other than FSX....

[amalahama]

I beg everynight this aircraft will be available in DCS some day...

 

Regards!

[Kenan]

VRS is doing what it's meant to do: simulate F18 and it's systems/weapons. We can debate about the "fidelity" of the simulation level..but don't forget most of RL pilots also train against "dummy" targets which are not firing back..and you still call them combat pilots flying combat training missions..so in that regard, VRS is a combat training simulator for SuperBug..

[JB3DG]

Personally I would say the only limitations that people could have a reason to complain about is the graphics engine of FSX. As long as the SDK is sufficiently open enough (which it is) there is no limit to the systems or the flight model fidelity that can be achieved, nor is there a limit to the combat environment (AI abilities and such) fidelity.

[aaron886]

...don't forget most of RL pilots also train against "dummy" targets which are not firing back..and you still call them combat pilots flying combat training missions..so in that regard, VRS is a combat training simulator for SuperBug..

 

Come on now, Kenan. That's severely undercutting the training experience of real pilots. Regardless, I (and most) compare one product to another. In that regard, the VRS Super Hornet lacks the combat environment of a contemporary combat simulator.

 

 

JB - Graphics are secondary, but the big things are efficiency (of the base code and "simconnect") and horrific multiplayer support. I don't continue my flight sim hobby for single player... once you go MP, you never go back.

 

Once someone truly creates a high-fidelity, low-overhead, externalized flight model for FSX, I won't count that among its features. No offense, I just have to see implementation before I believe it's possible.

[WynnTTr]

VRS is doing what it's meant to do: simulate F18 and it's systems/weapons. We can debate about the "fidelity" of the simulation level..but don't forget most of RL pilots also train against "dummy" targets which are not firing back..and you still call them combat pilots flying combat training missions..so in that regard, VRS is a combat training simulator for SuperBug..

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

 

That's what we mean by "combat environment" in a simulation game for our desktop computers. None of us here are actually going to fly any jet in combat but we can simulate that experience to the best of our hardware.

 

I personally would simulate the full combat environment then play a simulation of a simulator for combat pilots.

[WynnTTr]

Personally I would say the only limitations that people could have a reason to complain about is the graphics engine of FSX. As long as the SDK is sufficiently open enough (which it is) there is no limit to the systems or the flight model fidelity that can be achieved, nor is there a limit to the combat environment (AI abilities and such) fidelity.

 

To code a full combat environment with AI triggers, responses and situations is no small feat and it remains to be seen whether FSX can handle that.

 

We don't know how open the SDK will be and what can be done with it. No-one knows as it's not been released. If the SDK can create sufficiently smart AI, triggers, events to simulate a combat environment why not do it in the first place as a sample?

 

Someone has to change all those FSX objects, give them AI and create a combat environment. I'm sceptical but not without glimmer of hope.

 

We'll see what can be done but I'm not holding by breath or getting my hopes up that FSX will become a fully fledged combat environment. As a novelty thing yes but not one where there would be a campaign to play with. We'll see though.