VTB and FSX?

Aviation & Simulation Topics
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Blaze » Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:27 pm

Well, there it is! I think the choice is pretty clear now which is better for formation flying! ;)

FSXBA#5-Ripper
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:36 am

Post by FSXBA#5-Ripper » Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:34 pm

MSFS is not better for formation flying, LOMAC is certainly the better option there, we all know that. But to say that MSFS has little or no formation capability is incorrect. You may ask 'Why would you go for MSFS when LOMAC has better formation capabilities?'. The reason we have chosen MSFS is not because of its formation capabilities, rather the lack of it, we have chosen not to follow the rest of the herd of sheep that go to LOMAC. What is the point of making another formation team when almost anybody in your community can hold a decent stick in formation flying? We are trying to create a niche in our community for something that has never been done before. Still don't think it can be done? Think again.

Image

Image

Image

Image

These are all but a few of what can be achieved when a little extra initiative and practice is used. Just unedited, raw pictures
Image
User avatar
STRIKER
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:02 am
Location: Amarillo, TX

Post by STRIKER » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:13 am

Anyone can put screenies up with 6 jets. I'm talking about your video. Show me a video of your guys' performance that comes even close to LOMAC and you have me sold. Until then nothing has changed.
Image
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Post by Rhino » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:28 am

I think a few things need to be addressed before this goes any further, and a few pointers that may enlighten some.

We (or the VTB for that matter) have never said or will never say that another "team" could not be formed using the Blue Angel or Thunderbird "likeness" or "moniker" in another sim. I am not insinuating that any one said this, but just to put it out there.
Ripper wrote:But to say that MSFS has little or no formation capability is incorrect.
No one from our team to my knowledge has EVER said that formation flying could not be attained in FSX, FS9, etc.
Ripper wrote: The reason we have chosen MSFS is not because of its formation capabilities, rather the lack of it, we have chosen not to follow the rest of the herd of sheep that go to LOMAC.


Congrats. I believe stubbornness in its own right is a quality that people frown upon too much too frequently. Stubbornness to me means standing up for what you believe in even if everyone around you thinks otherwise.

However, sometimes stubbornness can go too far. I am in no way saying that you or your group are overly stubborn, but the fact is, that demonstration flying has been tried in other simulators before, and no one yet in my eyes has been able to come a wink close to what we, the VTB, and other virtual aerobatic teams strive for when it comes to flying our demos. In fact, yours truly used to be the commander of a team attempting to replicate the Thunderbirds in Allied Force. After about a full year of hard work and dedication, the light was shone to LockOn. Its a decision I will never regret, nor will, I'm sure, my former squad-mates Talon (VBA #3) or Panther (VTB #7), and I became very humbled from that experience. I was so enthusiastic about LockOn, that I even sent Panther a copy of LockOn Gold to her when she was stationed in Korea.

Here's about as good as we could get.

Image

Its not so much the formation flying aspect of what we do, its the down to the second recreation of what the real teams do, and the undeniable blood, sweat, and tears that go into the effort we put forth.

From the VBA aspect of things, we are celebrating our 5th year in the virtual aerobatics world. It has taken THAT LONG to just now start getting our F/A-18 show somewhat close to what the real guys are doing. (40 minutes for the Hornet portion if its a high show)

If some day, you guys feel that you can fly a whole demo, with 18 inches (less in some spaces) of separation and make the demo precise, crisp, fundamentally, and procedurally sound, by all means, you know how to get ahold of me. I'd love to come and watch, in fact, I'm sure everyone would. (I'm sure your C/O still has my cell no# from that little excursion into le Quebec City.)
Ripper wrote:What is the point of making another formation team when almost anybody in your community can hold a decent stick in formation flying?
As far as I know, the VBA and VTB accept applications for recruitment and to join our respective teams. No need to start a new group! In fact, our very own "Beaker" (VBA #7) and "Harm" (VBA #6) were once members of a Blue Angels team flying YSFlight. Obviously they've made a great positive impact on our current team.
Ripper wrote:We are trying to create a niche in our community for something that has never been done before. Still don't think it can be done? Think again.
I'd be careful to say that phrase "never been done before". I've seen "it" done before, and thats one of the reasons I've stayed in LockOn, but occasionally, I'll go back and fly with some of my friends on the flyfs server. Here are some flights we've done- (Screenshots by Ryan a.k.a. Tomcatboy.)

Image
Image
Phantoms Phorever!
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:44 am

Ripper wrote:MSFS is not better for formation flying, LOMAC is certainly the better option there, we all know that. But to say that MSFS has little or no formation capability is incorrect.
Agreed x 2!
Ripper wrote:The reason we have chosen MSFS is not because of its formation capabilities, rather the lack of it...
Ok, that makes no sense to me, but if that's why you guys use MSFS, good for you.
Ripper wrote:We are trying to create a niche in our community for something that has never been done before. Still don't think it can be done? Think again.
It was never a question IF it can be done in MSFS, (it's already been done), but rather WHY? (As you said yourself, "Lock On is certainly the better option").

@Rhino, well said.
FSXBA#5-Ripper
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:36 am

Post by FSXBA#5-Ripper » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:24 am

Rhino wrote:I've seen "it" done before
I can see that your idea of 'it' is different to mine. Formation itself has been done before, no question, but has the Blues and TBirds version of 'close' been done as a 'team' before? Certainly not successfully. No, our idea of 'it' is the ability to create a formation flying team that almost seamlessly replicates the likes of the BA's and TBirds (or anything else, my apologies). We haven't done it yet, but we arewithin arms reach, that is for sure. Not flying heritage flights once in a while with some friends or maybe with a *very* small show like Ryan at FlyFS does sometimes.
Rhino wrote:No need to start a new group!
When our team was started in the first place, we had no idea that the Lockon community even existed, it wasn't until several months after did we find out about LOMAC (which I bought about a week afterwards) and it's community. I am not a fan of the phrase 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em' nor ever will I be.
Rhino wrote:No one from our team to my knowledge has EVER said that formation flying could not be attained in FSX, FS9, etc.
If you noted what I said, that was 'LITTLE or no...' While this was not directly said, it was certainly implied in terms such as "Things that come easy in LockOn because of the great net/flight code were made nearly impossible with FSX" Which is entirely incorrect, from my short stick time in LOMAC, and watching VFAT videos, from what I can gather, LOMAC has just the same very *slight* problems.
Lawndart wrote:Ok, that makes no sense to me, but if that's why you guys use MSFS, good for you.
Haha, I can see where you're coming from, let me explain that a little further. The reason we prefer MSFS over LOMAC is because we would prefer the gratification of creating something almost entirely new to MSFS, as opposed to just another team in the bundle in LOMAC (and 2 Blues teams as I later found out :)).
Lawndart wrote:It was never a question IF it can be done in MSFS, (it's already been done), but rather WHY?
Well, if you are using 'it' in my context, I would like to see a link to a MSFS team that has replicated a real life aerobatic team (or created their own) that comes close to what the real thing looks like.

Why? Same reason as yourselves, only we would prefer to use MSFS instead of LOMAC, for those varied reasons. If you think otherwise, I would like to hear some legitimate reasons other than things such as 'Netcode', for I know it is entirely within the realm of possibilities, only it takes more time, more patience, and more practice, just like anything.

Before I get belted with more arguements here, I would also like to stress the fact that this is not an arguement, in any stretch of the imagination. Rather I don't like to see my beloved sim beaten to within an inch of it's life in public eyes :) I am sure if you know anyone in the Marine Corps you will have heard of the phrase 'Praise in public, punish in private'.

Thank you for your time.
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:13 pm

Ripper wrote:I would like to hear some legitimate reasons other than things such as 'Netcode', for I know it is entirely within the realm of possibilities, only it takes more time, more patience, and more practice, just like anything.
I think netcode and higher fidelity flight models are the two most legitimate reasons we have for choosing Lock On. We've always said we'd fly the sim that best allows us to complete the objective while maintaining a level of realism and difficulty as closely as possible to that of the real world. It doesn't mean the likes of MSFS or Falcon 4 make it impossible to do, but the simulator itself isn't as well suited for it, so it will be a non-stop battle against the sim (and not your own ability mostly) to overcome each and every time you fly.

Assuming we seek realism, once again the criteria from our end are: 1) Netcode; 2) Flight models; 3) Graphics vs. Performance. (High poly count models AND high FPS running on high settings); 4) Features and options in the sim to "showcase" our flying. (Views, recording, phantom etc.) and; 5) The ability to customize/mod.

Some or all of these reasons may or may not be found in other sims currently available, but not to the level provided in Lock On (as a collective). When a better suited sim comes along you can be sure we'll be flying it instead.
Ripper wrote:Before I get belted with more arguements here, I would also like to stress the fact that this is not an arguement, in any stretch of the imagination. Rather I don't like to see my beloved sim beaten to within an inch of it's life in public eyes :) I am sure if you know anyone in the Marine Corps you will have heard of the phrase 'Praise in public, punish in private'.
I'm not arguing that MSFS isn't a great sim, but you asked for our reasons why we don't think it is as good as Lock On for instance, and we've given our honest opinion. This is not personal, nor meant to take anything away from all the areas where MSFS do so well and to say Lock On is better all across the board. It's not. In our judgement, however, no other current sim surpasses the areas we've brought up that allows for a good platform for high fidelity formation flying.

While it may sound like we have a negative undertone in our replies, that's likely just your perception though. We try to bring forward valid points as for our choice. People ask us all the time, and we give them our straight forward answer and reasons. It certainly doesn't mean we like every aspect of Lock On, just as we may like certain aspects of MSFS better. The point is:

Why not walk the path of least resistance, instead of banging your head against the wall. Eventually, you might get through, but when the first path offers the realsim and better suitability, I have to wonder who's just stubborn and who's making a more educated choice..

For more on this, see: Out of curiosity: why LOMAC?
FSXBA#5-Ripper
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:36 am

Post by FSXBA#5-Ripper » Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:36 pm

Lawndart wrote:I think netcode and higher fidelity flight models are the two most legitimate reasons we have for choosing Lock On.
Higher fidelity FM's doesn't seem right to me. Unless you've figured out a way to edit your F-15 flight model, I can't see how it comes all that close to matching an F-16 or an F/A-18. As far as I am aware, the F-15 is one of the most powerful aircraft on the planet. So by 'higher fidelity' do you mean more realistic, or more convenient for your demo, or another meaning I haven't picked up on yet?
Lawndart wrote:Assuming we seek realism, once again the criteria from our end are: 1) Netcode; 2) Flight models; 3) Graphics vs. Performance
It looks like you did mean 'realistic', by which I am completely lost. The engines (while old) in MSFS, have the ability to create number for number FM's (or VERY VERY close), examples of that have been the VRS Superbug, and the CS C-130. While LOMAC even has some faults, especially when it comes to modding, as I explained before.

The performance of FSX is definately not as good as LOMAC, we all know that, but is not as bad as you are making it out to be. I mean, sure you get some 80,000 poly visual models, but believe it or not, when you throw 6 of them together, nothing happens. The level of graphics for performance in LOMAC is certainly better than MSFS, so I do more or less concede there.

Nor am I saying that MSFS is better suited for sim flying, because it just isn't. But it is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as you make it out to be. Your reasons for not using MSFS are there, and granted, they are valid. 'Because it is easier' is more or less your reason. According to you, netcode, *realism*(somehow) and performance are some of your big ones, making it easier (or more convenient) to fly the demo. Perfectly good reasons as far as I am concerned, however, we are doing this because doing everything in a harder sim, with a bigger audience, and why just take the easy (easier) route anyway? The long way 'round will get you further in the long run anyway.

In absolute closing, we enjoy doing our thing in MSFS, because it needs something different from giant flying jalopinios and bug smashers, it really does. I just hope you can respect us for that, because we feel likewise.
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:33 pm

By higher fidelity I mean the flight models feel more realistic. I'm not talking about our mod per se (as we all know that using the F-15 FM is a compromise we've chosen, but beside the point here). We are talking about the sim, not our mods. Simply put, Lock On's flyable airplanes compared to those in MSFS have better flight models IMO. That's my two cents from a real pilot's perspective for whatever that is worth.

Numbers are just numbers... "Garbage in, garbage out". Without a good simulation engine to back it up, it doesn't matter if they are by the book.
Ripper wrote:Nor am I saying that MSFS is better suited for sim flying, because it just isn't. But it is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as you make it out to be.
I never tried making it out to be really bad, just not as good.
Ripper wrote:'Because it is easier' is more or less your reason. According to you, netcode, *realism*(somehow) and performance are some of your big ones, making it easier (or more convenient) to fly the demo. Perfectly good reasons as far as I am concerned, however, we are doing this because doing everything in a harder sim, with a bigger audience, and why just take the easy (easier) route anyway? The long way 'round will get you further in the long run anyway.
My reason is not at all about making it easier. Again, you're missing the point seems. It's about not being limited by the simulator, and having a product that can deliver a realistic experience that's as close as you can come to the same difficulty faced in real life. If MSFS makes it harder, it's certainly not because it's more realistic, (but rather lacking, as you've alrelady said yourself).
Ripper wrote:In absolute closing, we enjoy doing our thing in MSFS, because it needs something different from giant flying jalopinios and bug smashers, it really does. I just hope you can respect us for that, because we feel likewise.
Enjoying it is the most important thing and we respect anyone who tries. I agree that it would be good for MSFS to expand beyond mostly being a good and diverse civilian flightsim. I'm still a bit confused by what you're trying to prove here though, since you say Lock On is the better option (i.e. not as lacking as MSFS), but somehow it's easy to fly Lock On and hard to fly MSFS and that makes it more realistic? - think again! ...and I mean that in the most respectful way. To me it sounds like realism is being confused with how challenging it may be to overcome the limitations of the flightsim.

Wish you guys the best of luck with MSFS. I do enjoy FSX, but not because any of the flight models or netcode, that much I'm sure of.
FSXBA#5-Ripper
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:36 am

Post by FSXBA#5-Ripper » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:22 am

Lawndart wrote:since you say Lock On is the better option (i.e. not as lacking as MSFS), but somehow it's easy to fly Lock On and hard to fly MSFS and that makes it more realistic?
As I have said before, is it easy to fly LOMAC in formation? No. Is it easier than FSX? Yes. That in itself doesn't make it realistic in my opinion, in my flight experience, and talking to others with extensive military history, it seems they believe FSX fits the bill. If you wouldn't mind looking at this man's blog, Mike Johnson's, you will find that all is not lost for realism in FSX. He is creating an L-39, which, will probably be the next big thing in MSFS: http://lotus-films.blogspot.com/
From my experiences with Mike for the past 1.5 years, this WILL BE entirely realistic. He is so set on making this FM perfect, he even got a ride in an L-39 on-the-house, from someone who owns a civilian L-39 (poor him :))

This is where the rubber meets the road, because it is an honest opinion. You quite obviously have yours, and that is LOMAC's realism is better than MSFS. I believe otherwise, they are both very good sims, just after flying MS's sim for so many years, I prefer the "feel" (as you say) of it over LOMAC. The 'hardness' of formation in MSFS, is merely a biproduct of a sim that I feel is more realistic than LOMAC, that is my opinion, you quite obviously have yours.

Now THIS IS the last post from me on this matter (you've put me on the spot again). So, in absolute absolute closing, just because we use a different sim, there is no reason why we can't maintain some sort of contact between 'worlds', and I certainly hope this trend continues well into the future.
Image
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Blaze » Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:50 am

FSXBA#5-Ripper wrote:He is creating an L-39, which, will probably be the next big thing in MSFS: http://lotus-films.blogspot.com/
From my experiences with Mike for the past 1.5 years, this WILL BE entirely realistic. He is so set on making this FM perfect, he even got a ride in an L-39 on-the-house, from someone who owns a civilian L-39 (poor him :))
Not to get off topic but OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: That L-39 is gorgeous! Being an L-39 enthusiast myself because of my team, that just blows me away!
Design is all about finding solutions within constraints.
Talon
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:56 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Post by Talon » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:38 am

FSXBA#5-Ripper wrote:As I have said before, is it easy to fly LOMAC in formation? No. Is it easier than FSX? Yes. That in itself doesn't make it realistic in my opinion
This statement doesn't make any sense at all, especially after we have spoken with actual formation pilots that have also tried doing it in LockON and they themselves say that it is easier to fly formation in real life compared to flying formation in LockOn. Being "harder" to fly doesn't make it more realistic.

Either way, I guess it is safe to say that we will all have to agree to disagree about FSX being an effective simulator for formation flying. To most all of us that have tried it, it still just doesn't cut it. Some of us are the first to try anything new that comes out anyways, and always compare each new sim to what we currently have.

As Striker mentioned above, hopefully one day an FSX formation team will put out a full close-up video showing the entire formation and the maneuvers from start to finish without the pan-outs, cut-aways, etc... so that everyone can see the entire formation as it completes each maneuver in their demo up close since split-second, good looking screenshots can be done in even the worst of sims. Most everyone in the LockOn community realizes that this is tough to do in FSX, but not impossible, so hopefully we will see one someday.

It would be great to see a nice smooth formation flying video come out of the FSX sim community, to see that somebody has finally done it.

Don't let any of this stop you on what you want to accomplish within FSX, so keep up the good work guys! I wish you all the best.

My best regards on your endeavors.
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:29 am

Ripper wrote:He is creating an L-39, which, will probably be the next big thing in MSFS: http://lotus-films.blogspot.com/
Here's a video with that L-39 that looks very promising and cool, I agree, but still appears the flying has a little ways to go. Too bad the dev team for MSFS was "let go" recently, as FSX could have been overhauled with better netcode and flight dynamics making close formation flying more friendly...

FSX Thunderbirds
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:58 pm
Location: Nellis AFB
Contact:

Post by FSX Thunderbirds » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:53 pm

WOW!!! One day I'm just surfing the web checking out all the flight sim aerobatic teams websites, and I go to virtualthunderbirds.com, so I go to the forums and I see Microsoft Flight Simulator. I go into one of the posts and I read that FSX isn't good enough for the virtual Thunderbirds. Not to be a jerk or anything, but I don't think the Virtual Thunderbirds are good enough for FSX. I like you guys and all, but when I read that, you guys crossed the line. Becuase our team, and the FSX Blues are working our butts off to make FSX aerobatics look good, and then I read this. Ya ya ya, I know LOMAC is easier to do formation in than FSX, and you guys on LOMAC for sure look better than us on FSX, but come on.

Image
Image

User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:00 pm

Why is everyone flying FSX missing the point... :roll:

We call it as we see it... no sugar coating! If you don't like our opinion about which flightsim is better suited (for the intent of aerobatics), that's fine, but we've never said we don't like other teams (FSX included).

Good job and nice looking video! :)
Locked