f-22 by Iris preview

[starsky396]

Isn't the F-22 too confidential to even do AFM?

[Grim_Smiles]

+1 :thumbup:

 

But new kids will buy F22. UFO shooting 120s... yay! I'm sure the online servers will be full of it :P .

 

I think all the gizmos and stealth in the world won't make a s*** pilot that much better. Let's hope the start-up sequences for a Raptor are as involved as the A-10C, that way the ones who wouldn't pop open a flight manual if they had a gun to their head aren't getting off the ground intact. If they manage to at least take off, think of it as a target rich environment.:smilewink:

 

 

 

 

As for the F-22, if IRIS can make all the switches and screens work like A-10C, and the flight model and avionics as accurate as you reasonably can get (even if its only 70% on the avionics), I'd say go for it and let server admins and mission designers decide if they want them involved.

 

Hell I've had friends who do other types of simulators tell me that flying DCS A-10C or DCS F-18C is not a simulator but a video game, because you can't get a modern jet to 100% accuracy due to classified material. To them, if it isn't 100% you are just playing with a toy. I of course tell them they are full of it, so no need to ask me to pass that on.:joystick:

[SkateZilla]

(DISCLAIMER, THIS IS A JOKE!, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY).

 

As Long as IRIS is able to model the Oxygen System, so the F-22 is forced to remain on the ground for months at a time, roflmao..

 

I remember when people first saw it flying during testing, they called it a Speedboat with Wings.

[otto]

All we need now is Rafale.:lol:

[lfc3333]

(DISCLAIMER, THIS IS A JOKE!, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY).

 

As Long as IRIS is able to model the Oxygen System, so the F-22 is forced to remain on the ground for months at a time, roflmao..

 

I remember when people first saw it flying during testing, they called it a Speedboat with Wings.

 

Took me a minute to realise, but then I got it. Good joke ;D

[NineLine]

So if you say DCS Raptor, does that mean it will ship with a Dynamic Corrosion System :D (I kid, I kid...)

 

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2579.html

[Flanker47]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1833625&postcount=102

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1834790&postcount=114

 

Nice!

 

Looking forward to the F-14.

My favorite plane since I was a kid (Maybe for obvious reasons)

[SkateZilla]

Im waiting for all the Philosoraptor meme's with the DCS tag on them.

[Flanker47]

Guys the forum was removed due to lack of communication and the fact we didn't really have anything to show. So until the projects are considerably further along, it'll remain that way. :) We'll have a new home here in time. :)

 

Thanks for the feedback!

 

I just can't understand why are you guys working on a military plane for FSX.

I mean I do understand, there are people who wants it, but no weapons, no use for radars... just flying around?

Must be a joy to fly it, landing on the carriers etc, but just feels an incomplete experience to me.

 

Anyway, just saying. :)

[MARCO_rptr]

Hell I've had friends who do other types of simulators tell me that flying DCS A-10C or DCS F-18C is not a simulator but a video game, because you can't get a modern jet to 100% accuracy due to classified material. To them, if it isn't 100% you are just playing with a toy. I of course tell them they are full of it, so no need to ask me to pass that on.:joystick:

 

You are right, you can't get it 100%, but you can get very closed to it, there is a lot of secret stuff for weapons, RDR, and avionics systems in the legacy hornet, but with today’s technology, it will be impossible to recreate it or maybe not even necessary to imitate it 100%, i.e.: I don't think is necessary create a built-in-test for hydraulic system when in real life it can only be done on the ground; instead you can put the feature and have a GO. Then in-flight you can have cautions and advisories for it, but that's other story.

 

In my opinion I think is important to have all the avionics functioning specially storage management, but, majority of PC pilots don't care about that, don't even know or have the intention to use it. You can put all that money and development in some that your return is going to be very limited because pilots don't want to buy some that is too technical.

 

The solution I see is to have 2 versions; one the easy start-n-go, and the one more technical, that way you guarantee some kind of return of the investment and still maintaining high standards and good reputation in our community.

[MARCO_rptr]

Thanks for the feedback!

 

I just can't understand why are you guys working on a military plane for FSX.

I mean I do understand, there are people who wants it, but no weapons, no use for radars... just flying around?

Must be a joy to fly it, landing on the carriers etc, but just feels an incomplete experience to me.

 

Anyway, just saying. :)

 

I agree with you, I had to go out and buy a working radar cuz I was tired to do a 360 degree view every 30 sec.

 

It should be like a network of resources for developers, so they can help each other out and make a little money, no body is going to be rich overnight, but is better that not getting any money.

 

There is way too many talented individuals in our community.

[Pyroflash]

Not to derail this too badly, but IMPO, the biggest difference between DCS and "professional simulators" isn't the level of detail in the aircraft itself. It isn't the game engine, the AI, the ATC, or any of those things. What it really comes down to is the lack of cockpit realism.

 

How many of us fly at a desk with nothing more than a HOTAS Warthog, a TIR, and pedals? How many of us never bring along proper unique aircraft documentation on a flight? How many of us use paper charts? There are a whole slurry of different reasons why DCS is, and will continue to be, less realistic than "professional" sims on the market, least of which are the aircraft. Trust me.

[FoxHoundELite]

The overall model is good,need more polished.The cockpit needs a lots of works.But since they are focusing on the Talon,this bird can wait :)

[hollywoodvillain]

Thanks for the feedback!

 

I just can't understand why are you guys working on a military plane for FSX.

I mean I do understand, there are people who wants it, but no weapons, no use for radars... just flying around?

Must be a joy to fly it, landing on the carriers etc, but just feels an incomplete experience to me.

 

Anyway, just saying. :)

 

I agree with you, I had to go out and buy a working radar cuz I was tired to do a 360 degree view every 30 sec.

 

It should be like a network of resources for developers, so they can help each other out and make a little money, no body is going to be rich overnight, but is better that not getting any money.

 

There is way too many talented individuals in our community.

You fellers have obviously never used the Tacpack. That is the future of military sims. And you don't have to wait another 4 years to fly nevada...

[cichlidfan]

You fellers have obviously never used the Tacpack. That is the future of military sims. And you don't have to wait another 4 years to fly nevada...

 

Not as long as it only works on FSX.

[hollywoodvillain]

Not as long as it only works on FSX.

 

If you say so. With the SDK release I just can't see any advantages DCS has to offer anymore

 

I however will buy any model from IRIS assuming it has working avionics and weapons, DCS or FSX.

Edited August 12, 2013 by hollywoodvillain

[MARCO_rptr]

You fellers have obviously never used the Tacpack. That is the future of military sims. And you don't have to wait another 4 years to fly nevada...

 

Obviously not Mr. Holliwood, we were talking about having to buy an aircraft and then RDRs, weapons systems, etc, separated.

 

From the financial view to the end-user view is a win-win situation if developers work together. Let assume that X weapons pack and Y fighter jet are not selling that much or very slowly, let see they are not reaching the market fully, low income pilots are buying one of two producs, or may be getting it from torrent sites. companies are making some money but not taking advantage from a full market. if X and Y company merge in a product and lower their initial price to make it more accessible to all markets, then both companies will reach in full the market and will be more profitable and end user will get exactly what he or she wants. "win-win". :)

[outlawal2]

You fellers have obviously never used the Tacpack. That is the future of military sims. And you don't have to wait another 4 years to fly nevada...

 

So the future of military sims is using an application that is now cancelled and no longer has support from it's parent company? (FSX and Microsoft)

 

That is certainly not MY future of military sims... !

[Raven68]

So the future of military sims is using an application that is now cancelled and no longer has support from it's parent company? (FSX and Microsoft)

 

That is certainly not MY future of military sims... !

 

+1,000 :megalol::megalol:

[Flanker47]

You fellers have obviously never used the Tacpack. That is the future of military sims. And you don't have to wait another 4 years to fly nevada...

 

Indeed I never heard of it until now that you recommended it, but you know FSX is no longer supported by it's developer and Tacpack looks to be a mod, and besides, who guarantees that third parties will support it?

 

Now DCS... well DCS exists for the purpose of being a military sim already, it's just... waiting for this awesome model to be flied on.:pilotfly:

 

And you know, I tried FSX in the past and I even bought Cliffs of Dover, and many others in the past, but the one I really loved is DCS, so I would like things developed for it and not move to another Sim again.

 

But thanks for the tip, if this stuff were free or if it had a Demo I would try it for sure.:thumbup:

[MARCO_rptr]

TACPACK

 

The only bad thing, at least for me, is that it doesn't work in VATSIM, vUSN use it but I don't know how they operate with it.

FSX doesn't have any support is because is not more to improve or fix in the game itself, we have to hope that 3rd party software is not going to hurt our sim, developers work very hard to make these sofware very reliable and compatible.

[Hamblue]

So the future of military sims is using an application that is now cancelled and no longer has support from it's parent company? (FSX and Microsoft)

 

That is certainly not MY future of military sims... !

I don't fly FSX but there is support. It's called Prepared

http://www.prepar3d.com/support/sdk/

[Sorin]

I don't fly FSX but there is support. It's called Prepared

http://www.prepar3d.com/support/sdk/

 

Yes, I know about it. Still I would never pay $199 for a slightly improved FSX.

The FSX code/engine is just too buggy and resource hungry.

 

I have done quite a lot of "flying" in FSX and enjoyed the stock F-18 and the VRS F-18.

But switching to DCS A-10C was a huge step forward for me. I think that no amount of patching will fix FSX...

If you want a military flight simulator it is very hard to beat DCS A-10C for the time being.

[MARCO_rptr]

I don't fly FSX but there is support. It's called Prepared

http://www.prepar3d.com/support/sdk/

 

That is very cool and free... tutorials are great too.

[eurofor]

What I'll enjoy most about this addition is the crying when the fanboys realise that this plane is not magical and will not automatically win the fight for them.