VTB and FSX?

Aviation & Simulation Topics
Grab
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:26 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Contact:

VTB and FSX?

Post by Grab » Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:39 pm

I have been flying MSFS since the begining and I'm sure by now have thousands of hours flying everything from Piper Cub's to 747-400 to F/A-18's. It seems to me that everything that FSX offers in terms of an engine that it would be a logical next step for the demo to migrate to FS10. I have flown both LOMAC and FS10 and it seems to me that there is so much (not only graphically) that can be gained from migrating the team FS10. Some new features that stand out to me are a 24/7 server set to Nelis AFB that people could log on too and fly. Live demonstrations that take place at all the same locations that we have all seen the real team perform at, beautiful DirectX 10 scenery and aircraft with highly realistic flight dynamics, an added element of air traffic controll, general aviation consideration, steaming video of your practices and performances, live streaming audio of your comms, and more imprtantly a HUGE online community based in FSX. All of that is possible with the FSX engine and the way servers are set up, and I know pepole and have seen it in action in a large scale and it is quite amazing.

I know I'm the new guy to the forums and I'm sure this has been discussed but as an avild FSX pilot I thought I would bring it up.
Image
User avatar
STRIKER
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:02 am
Location: Amarillo, TX

Post by STRIKER » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:26 pm

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

Post by Lawndart » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:10 pm

Do a forum search for "Why LOMAC"...

FSX isn't good enough, simply put! ;)

Netcode and flight models are far better in LockOn and IMHO (speaking from real world experience for a moment), while MSFS is an amazing product with tons of realism in one package, the flight dynamics are horrible! Especially when it comes to military jets!
Grab
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:26 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Contact:

Post by Grab » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:32 am

The netcode via gamespy is garbage, I concede that. However via IP direct connect, online gameplay is top notch with FS10, hundreds of players, never had lag. I can only speak to the flight dynamics of aircraft I own and the stock ones, the commercial aircraft are great, the acceleration F/A-18... no so great.

It's the world of payware add-ons that make flying FS10 a dream. I have probably spent in the area of $300 on addons that are just simply fantastic. I have the captain-sim Xload (F/A18D and F117), not having actually flown the real aircraft I can't say for sure but I would have to say they got the dynamics right. I'm personally waiting for the aerosoft F-16, its got a hefty price tag but it's definetly looking like a good one.

Besides... the thought of Smoke On 2: DirectX 10 is fun to imagine :D
Image
User avatar
Gunner
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by Gunner » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:28 am

@zeitzeph -believe me, with all the advantages of FSX, we would use it if the netcode allowed what we do. No matter how you connect, try pulling a 3g loop 36" from another jet at 400kts & see what happens. As far as the flight dynamics, Lawndart is speaking from thousands of hours flying the real thing...nuff said :wink: .
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Blaze » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:30 pm

I totally agree with what Striker, LD, and Gunner all said. FSX is a great simulator for solo flying and GA aircraft, and the visuals are just stunning with the new dx10 engine. But when it comes to military aircraft's flight dynamics and the netcode within FSX it just doesn't deliver what Lock-On does, which has one of the best netcodes of any flightsim out there. And while the flight dynamics in Lock-On aren't entirely accurate, they are way more accurate than the military flight dyamics you'll find in any version of MSFS, since it was mainly designed as a general aviation sim. I'm sure that when the right sim comes out with a great netcode, and if it passes the "LD test" then the team would probably switch over.
Design is all about finding solutions within constraints.
User avatar
STRIKER
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:02 am
Location: Amarillo, TX

Post by STRIKER » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:13 pm

What the hell is the "LD test." I call it the "common sense test" hence why Burner and I chose to have the VTB continue with LOMAC back when we were forming the team.
Image
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Blaze » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:25 pm

STRIKER wrote:What the hell is the "LDtest." I call it the "common sense test" hence why Burner and I chose to have the VTB continue with LOMAC back when we were forming the team.
Oh kind of a joke I guess. Luse, Frazer, Redeye and myself were in Vent the other day and were talking about whether or not the VTB would transition to Fighter Ops when it came out and Redeye said most likely if it passes the LD test. :lol: Where Lawndart would test it and give the ok. Just a joke. :wink:
Design is all about finding solutions within constraints.
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Post by Rhino » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:59 pm

Hope you dont mind a "Navy guy" chiming in here on this subject, but I agree with what has been said by the VTB members here.

A few VBA tried out FSX: Acceleration when it came out. We tried a few things including basic formations, maneuvers, etc. Things that come easy in LockOn because of the great net/flight code were made nearly impossible with FSX.

While maybe after years of practice with FSX we could get somewhere close to where we are now or have been, it was obvious to us that at the present state that FSX is at, the level of precision and excellence we strive for with the VBA (and I'm sure the same thing with the VTB) would be unattainable.

Not to mention, the fact that we already have such a great Virtual Aerobatic community in LockOn! VFAT this year will be bigger and better than it has been in years past, with last years success in having thousands of people being able to watch live. How many can you connect to an FSX session? 30? 50? Not to mention the fact that you actually have to have the sim/game to be able to see whats going on. With VFAT, it will be streamed live off of a web site.
Image
Phantoms Phorever!
Grab
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:26 pm
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Contact:

Post by Grab » Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 am

Gunner wrote:@zeitzeph -believe me, with all the advantages of FSX, we would use it if the netcode allowed what we do. No matter how you connect, try pulling a 3g loop 36" from another jet at 400kts & see what happens. As far as the flight dynamics, Lawndart is speaking from thousands of hours flying the real thing...nuff said :wink: .
I love to try pulling a 3g loop 36" from another jet but unfortunetly thanks to my crappy schedule and being deployed all the time I don't have anyone to fly with. :( Theres no chance I'll ever be behind the controls of a real F16 let alone fly for the Thunderbirds thanks to my slight color deficiency but I would sure love to fly with you guys some day. :)

I'm no expert on the aircraft or the code behind it, just curious what the technical reason was. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle!
Image
FSXBA#5-Ripper
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:36 am

Post by FSXBA#5-Ripper » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:09 am

I realize that posting here right now is utterly utterly hopeless given the amount of people here who stand by LOMAC to the last drop of blood, however, I thought I might join in on the action a little.

FSX's Flight Modelling varies quite considerably, depending on the aircraft, and developing team, etc. So to say that all FSX's flight models are inaccurate is probably not quite the right way to put it. The fact remains that FSX has the ability to create a 'number-for-number' FM, and has done in the past, and LOMAC really does not have that ability. The fact still remains that F/A-18's and F-16's are being operated under LOMAC's F-15 FM.

In saying this, things such as the Acceleration F/A-18 are not 'number-for-number' FM's either, so the FM's are inaccurate on different aspects in both sims, ESPECIALLY LOMAC's ground handling.

As for netcodes, I have hardly ever had a problem in FSX. I have heard in the past that whenever people move close to another aircraft, the other plane starts stuttering uncontrollably, however, this has seldom happened to me. I have also seen aircraft in LOMAC jolting around the sky like a kangaroo in the same manner, so, given my experience in both sims, they are more or less on par.

As for pulling 3G loops in FSX? Well, you're probably correct to a degree there. There is definately a limitation, but (as we found out) if you practice enough, that barrier is surpassable. What makes the difference there is beyond me. So is flying formation in LOMAC easy? Definately not, however, is it easier than FSX? Hell yes. Is there an easy way to fly formation in FSX? No, but it takes plenty of time, it is a well refined art-form. The capability for live shows in FSX is also there too, the only real difference is that live shows in LOMAC have already taken place, whereas in FSX they have not. And I am certain that this is all about to change in the future.

Sometimes I think our real-life counterparts have it easier. Unlimited FPS, no comms/internet lag and everyone gets a TrackIR.
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:27 am

There are two types "difficult": 1) Where the sim itself makes it unnecessarily hard to fly formation because poor programming and; 2) Where you can overcome the difficulty by developing skill through practice (without fighting "#1"). So far in my experience, only one sim has kept the limit of what is possible and what isn't in the hands of the pilot: Lock On. Some people might argue that it is easier to fly formation in Lock On than FSX, and I agree, for all the right reasons, because it isn't limited by poor design, but rather has enough realism to make it challenging, difficult and rewarding to fly each time because you're in control of the outcome and not hampered by the design flaws.

Flying formation in real life isn't hard either per se, but everyone is limited by their own experience and skill level. That's the same feeling I get flying formation in Lock On. I do not feel that way about flying formation in most other simulators such as FSX and Falcon 4. It always feels as if there is something making it harder than it has to be, something that's out of my control completely, and it's usually called: Netcode!

My .02c
FSXBA#5-Ripper
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:36 am

Post by FSXBA#5-Ripper » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:12 pm

Very true, but "unnecessarily difficult" is probably not correct. Yes, it is harder than Lockon in my experience, but, as you say, that skill does eventually come out through practice.

Formation in FSX wasn't even meant to be, FSX is for commercial aviation and general aviation (something I find utterly boring in any sim) However, it certainly is possible, the only difference is people have never made anything of this hidden beauty in FSX, whereas people in LOMAC have. Is it derived from 'poor programming'? I don't think so, the only reason it is easier in real life is because you have almost unlimited FPS, you are equipped with depth perception, and a feel for the aircraft. The programming is there, its just that no one has made anything of it.
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:09 pm

I've flown MSFS for many years, and in many ways I'm impressed with the title, but not when it comes to having the same capability (as Lock On) to allow for skill to shine through, rather than compensating for its weaknesses. Sure, you can overcome some of it through practice, but you're still fighting the shortcomings in the sim - not honing your skills in an environment that lets you reach your potential. Just my .02c

I think it's safe to say we can agree to disagree on this one. :wink:
User avatar
STRIKER
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:02 am
Location: Amarillo, TX

Post by STRIKER » Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:36 pm

When FSX teams start flying even close to what the VTB and VBA fly let me know. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole with FSX formation flying when LOMAC is right in front of your eyes. It's literally willfully denying yourself the better formation sim. Countless FS teams have formed and broken up over the years. It just doesn't work as of today... do you honestly think we havent tried FS... anytime a new FS comes out or addon every LOMAC team is all over it and we all keep getting disappointed. I'm sick of people telling us about FS like we never tried it. I totally have the utmost respect to everyone, no matter what sim you are flying, but why go for broke when you could have the richest formation flight sim experience known to mankind.
Last edited by STRIKER on Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
Locked