Posted: 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!
http://forum.virtualthunderbirds.com/
http://forum.virtualthunderbirds.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2588
No one from our team to my knowledge has EVER said that formation flying could not be attained in FSX, FS9, etc.Ripper wrote:But to say that MSFS has little or no formation capability is incorrect.
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.
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:What is the point of making another formation team when almost anybody in your community can hold a decent stick in formation flying?
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.)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.
Agreed x 2!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.
Ok, that makes no sense to me, but if that's why you guys use MSFS, good for you.Ripper wrote:The reason we have chosen MSFS is not because of its formation capabilities, rather the lack of it...
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").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 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:I've seen "it" done before
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 need to start a new group!
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.Rhino wrote:No one from our team to my knowledge has EVER said that formation flying could not be attained in FSX, FS9, etc.
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:Ok, that makes no sense to me, but if that's why you guys use MSFS, good for you.
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.Lawndart wrote:It was never a question IF it can be done in MSFS, (it's already been done), but rather WHY?
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.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'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.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'.
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:I think netcode and higher fidelity flight models are the two most legitimate reasons we have for choosing Lock On.
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.Lawndart wrote:Assuming we seek realism, once again the criteria from our end are: 1) Netcode; 2) Flight models; 3) Graphics vs. Performance
I never tried making it out to be really bad, just not as good.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.
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:'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.
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.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.
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/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?
Not to get off topic but OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That L-39 is gorgeous! Being an L-39 enthusiast myself because of my team, that just blows me away!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 )
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.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
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...Ripper wrote:He is creating an L-39, which, will probably be the next big thing in MSFS: http://lotus-films.blogspot.com/