Again, the whole "backseat concept" sounds cool in the designing phase, but I really don't think it will do so hot in the real world. I think most of you guys have the mentality that "I will be flying the jet, while the "other guy" will be in the back handling the instruments/systems." With everyone having that mentality, there will not be many people that will be regular or skilled Radar Intercept Officers.
By the same reasoning, we might as well say that services like VATSIM or IVAO should have failed, because "everybody" is only interested in flying, and nobody would want to play as a radar controller.
If Microsoft tries put all the "bells and whistles" on it, such as FLIR, LANTIRN and the tons of moving control surfaces that are on the Tomcat, it's going to be a memory hog and kill frame rates for many players in the multiplayer sessions.
Apart for the fact that the system you cited are not needed as long we don't have weapons (nobody complained of their absence in the F/A-18), the number of moving surfaces in a model doesn't have anything to do with the multiplayer performance. I hope you don't really think FSX transmit the whole model or animated part in real time over the net! The only thing that gets transmitted is the actual EVENT (flaps, ailerons, etc) and that has exactly the same impact, regardless if the model it's a C172 or a 747. Since each player has his own copy of the model, fact the event arrived via multiplayer or via local keyboard, doesn't change much.
FSX is for civilian/corporate flying not combat dogfighting.
By this reasoning, we might very well eliminate this whole section, forget about military airplanes in FSX, and stop talking about it, because it doesn't make much sense as long as we don't have weapons.
Instead, funny enough, THIS section is the most visited on our website. Apparently, people ARE interested in military jets used in FSX.
The moment Microsoft starts adding guns and missiles to FSX, it then becomes a GAME and not a SIMULATOR
No, it might become a more complete simulator, instead.
Anyway, don't be worried, because MS doesn't have any intention for the foreseeable future to add weapons to FSX. And that's because of ESRB ratings.
That's why a lot of old-fashioned MSFS guys weren't too happy about the Acceleration Pack because they say it made sim feel more like a game vs. a sim
No, those guys were complaining in advance *before* even seeing Acceleration and before having the slightest idea how the missions would have been.
If there is something that Acceleration proved, is that you STILL remain focused on simulation, even when adding some kind a competitive element like missions, and you can have a military jet (like F/A-18) that is still interesting to use just for training and navigation, even without firing a single shot, which is what a real world military pilot does most of the time anyway...
Again, if Microsoft makes another Combat Flight Simulator utilizing modern aircraft, the Tomcat would be a MUST in my book. But not for FSX.
The same might be said for the F/A-18, and for any other airplane that is supposed to carry any kind of weapon. It doesn't have any sense because, if we follow this reasoning, the only military airplanes allowed in FSX should be trainers, but I don't think Acceleration would have sold much, if it came with a T-38 in place of the F/A-18...
