How far has VRS Tacpack come?

[+streakeagle 871]

Looking on the internet, you can find plenty of cool screenshots and some videos, but how well does it really work?

With all the limitations of the FSX engine, combined with running the Tacpack addon, can air combat really be handled with an fps fluent enough for gun fights?

Are the physics/flight models/damage models at least comparable to the Strike Fighters series?

Is air to air combat limited to unresponsive AI drones and multiplayer?

Is multiplayer decent?

What level of hardware does it take to get this setup to run adequately?

 

For now, I am skeptical. But as I see more products released with Tacpack support, I am tempted.

I love DCS, but I have no problems enjoying parallel products that are equally good or even switching products if a better one steps up to the plate.

But I have no interest in rudimentary experimental code.

I suspect even DCS's buggiest beta releases are far closer to what I am looking for than the present state VRS, but I am open to information that can refute my suspicions.

[+ST0RM 145]

I missed this thread, but will answer with what I've seen.

 

First off, there aren't many TacPack capable aircraft available. While it has a SDK and tutorial on how to add some function into stock aircraft, I couldn't get to work. And those that have, aren't sharing.

 

Dino's F-14, T-45, S-3, F-35 and most recently Mb326 are all out of the box TP ready. FMs are very good.

VRS has only released the F/A-18E. It's outstanding, but has a high learning curve. There were rumors of them working on a Foxtrot, but nothing talked about in a very long time.

IRIS's A-10 is my favorite. Weapons delivery is quite good, if not simplified a bit as it's not a full on A-10C, but an A-10A+. FM is similar to the DCS Hawg, but overpowered when clean IMO. (IRIS has said they are releasing the AT-6C Texan II with TP soon)

Finally, Aerosoft just released their F-14 Tomcat. It's the A & B. I've heard good reports on FM and general behavior. TF30 engine stalls, etc...

 

So, how do these all act? I used to MP with a group of Canadians. They used the VRS Superbug and I was a Hawg driver. We went at it in a guns only fight and drug it out. I got the kid to play my game and drug him low and slow. This was my area and I was able to score gun hits on him. No visible damage aside from smoke, but on his end, all kinds of warnings as systems shut down from damage. During a visual fight with AIM-9s, flares can spoof the missiles when combined with maneuvering. Or terrain masking (which btw, does block the Bug's radar)

 

Is it SF2 level? No, but is fun. I'm just sad it hasn't taken off as it was hyped. A lot of promise in it, but not much backing. Supposedly, FSX at War will be released this year which may change that.

 

-Jeff

[+streakeagle 871]

I didn't back DCS until it promised to equal or surpass the SF2 series -> announcement of MiG-21bis and equally important, the upgrading of the FC3 FMs as LOMAC and FC1/2 FMs were still way inferior to TK's approach.

If TacPack multiplayer equals DCS and gives me aircraft I want modeled to that level, it will get my support. Some basic dogfight AI for offline practice/training would sweeten the deal as well.

From your description, TacPack isn't even at the original SFP1 Walmart release level yet, which is just too large a step backwards for me.

I wish AccuSim and its BDG/BoB2 branch was involved in TacPack development/implementation. It would still take a while to reach my needs, but I know they are capable and willing to get that level of results.

 

On a slight tangent, I haven't played X-Plane since they added the "combat" capability to it. As I understand it, it is a very limited capability that does no real damage/destruction. Just a "non-violent" fun type of combat. If implemented correctly, it could resemble Red Flag exercise simulated combat, which would be good enough for me to enjoy it if everything else was right. But every time I try X-Plane, I am disappointed with almost every aspect, but especially its supposed strong point, the flight modeling. I found TK's simplified linear equation tables far more realistic than anything I have flown in X-Plane. At low speeds where it should shine, it does work fairly well. But having flown Cessnas and Pipers in reality, it doesn't really seem to work any more realistically than FSX despite any advantages its flight model engine is supposed to provide. At transonic/supersonic speeds, X-Planes doesn't even come close to getting it right with its stock F-4 Phantom. If they got that one airplane mostly right, I would probably be their biggest fan, instead has been one of their worst compared to real-world behavior and performance. I always did enjoy flying the X-15 and shuttle orbiter. I doubt the realism of the flight modeling, but find it fun and challenging to play. To be fair, I haven't bought/played X-Plane since version 8. But other than graphics and "combat", I see no reason to believe version 10 would be worth buying/installing.

 

With SF2 development halted and DCS surpassing SF2 by providing much greater versions of aircraft spanning WW2 to the present (even the best helicopters I have ever flown in a sim), DCS is probably going to be my main game for some time to come. I still wish the best to VRS and TacPack. The Aerosoft F-14 is especially tempting. But DCS development has been flying. I have been installing a new plane almost every month. If DCS 2 / Edge lives up to the hype and some sort of Korea and Vietnam maps get released sometime thereafter, I will be just kicking back and enjoying the aircraft I have while awaiting the next batch of releases: P-40F, P-47, Spitfire, Me 262, MiG-15bis, F/A-18C, Leatherneck F-14?, Mirage 2000C, and whatever else may pop up over the next 2 or 3 years.

 

A dark horse is the DoveTail re-release of FSX. Are they just going to support more addons for the existing code, or will a newer, better sim based on FSX eventually be released? They need to improve the engine while maintaining compatibility with VRS and AccuSim projects to really be successful. If TrainSimulator is anything to go by, there will be no real improvements, just a lot more DLC and progressively less capability and more bugs as new patches are released annually. I hope I am wrong and FSX is dramatically improved with full support and co-operation of 3rd parties.

[+ST0RM 145]

I think you summed it up in your last paragraph. FSX & TacPack will never surpass a purpose built combat sim (DCS). Even P3D isn't all that was hoped by FSX crossovers

 

TP was a gimmick that took a long time to release and is limited to a few devs. It had potential, just not a lot of backing.

 

Jeff

[+streakeagle 871]

There is a cash benefit for producing a crossover sim that can satisfy FSX/X-Plane fans AND combat sims. There is a customer benefit if the skills of the two communities can be pooled together to produce the best pay-for and free addons in the least time possible. Whether FSX or X-Plane ever adds combat/AI to the level of DCS or DCS adds a global environment supporting private/commercial aircraft like FSX/X-Plane, the end result could be very good. The volume and quality of material still being produced for FSX is absolutely amazing considering its age and abandonment by Microsoft. If DCS could build up that kind of support and loyalty, I would be very happy.

[+ST0RM 145]

The volume and quality of material still being produced for FSX is absolutely amazing considering its age and abandonment by Microsoft.

 

True above, but much of it still revolves around the civilian side. I get notices from PCAviator about my lack of purchases within X amount of months and they throw a 10% off coupon my way. They ask why I haven't spent any money. The truth? Not much has peaked my interest. I'm not a civi flyer and the bulk of aftermarket stuff follow that.

 

I'd love to see MS come back strong with a CFS 4 Modern Warfare. Maybe take up where TK left off. SF2 was great, but we know where it ended and left open. DCS is good for the hardcore, but I prefer the FC3 level of aircraft. But I digress...

 

Still waiting on FSX @ War to see where TP goes.

 

-Jeff

[+streakeagle 871]

I have no trouble ignoring the extra buttons and flying as if an SF2 level on most of the current DCS aircraft.

The A-10C and Ka-50 with all of their advanced systems are the only ones that require advanced proficiency to use their tactical systems effectively.

Startup/shutdown procedures can be done with a key press.

So, the complexity hasn't hurt me on those nights I just want to fly or dogfight.

Then, when I have the time and energy, I can still do full ramp start, radio comms, etc. 

 

The big problem I had with FC3 aircraft was the flight modeling, and the A-10A, F-15C, Su-25, and Su-27 have fixed that part.

So, I wouldn't mind more aircraft being introduced at the FC level as long as they have the PFM.

 

But the flight model is the hardest, most time consuming part, so third parties are more likely to provide detailed system modeling with a simple flight model until they can finish a PFM->VEAO Hawk.

But Belsimtek and Leatherneck give you the full deal from the start.

 

I would kill for a full DCS F-4, but would settle for an F-5, F-8, F-104, or F-105. The F-5E would be a great match for the MiG-21bis.

 

I might get Tac Pack and the new F-14... but not until the Steam version of FSX is supported. I don't want to mess with my disc version, not sure how many more times I can activate it.

[+streakeagle 871]

Someone besides DCS has figured out how to access my wallet and get me to try Tac Pack: https://www.facebook.com/SimWorksStudios

 

A Tac Pack supported F-4B Phantom has reached the beta testing level.

I will wait for reviews, but these guys could succeed where A2A has failed: giving me a big enough reason to put some time and money into FSX in the form of a well modeled F-4 Phantom.

[+streakeagle 871]

SimWorks Studios now has a website: http://simworksstudios.com/

If their F-4B is as good as they are claiming, it will easily equal DCS in flight model and systems accuracy.

So, they are inadvertently going to make me a Tac Pack customer.

 

This will finally satisfy my curiosity about Tac Pack and FSX viability as a combat flight sim.

 

There is a limitation: They are using tools that do not support P3D, so they are only officially supporting an FSX version. I don't know if FSX Steam Edition is supported, but they would be completely stupid if they didn't at least support that.

[Platinum Rogue 48]

Thread resurrection alert!!

 

I'm having plenty of fun in "The Green Hell" but I can't ignore the fact that SF2's F4E doesn't do this, and I'm now really tempted.

 

 

 

Tacpack has come a long way, there are now many great planes using it's features. There's now SA-2's that can kill you, and you can weasel them back. Sadly still no sign of any AI air combat opponents but I don't go looking for trouble at 20000ft regularly anyway, as I prefer ground-pounding.

 

And that VRS Superbug is what Jane's F-18 could have become, so I'm probably getting that too.

 

[+streakeagle 871]

Back to the future:

I have now had the SimWorks Studios F-4B, VRS Super Hornet, and VRS TacPack for awhile. What has been accomplished within the FSX framework is utterly amazing, but still falls way short of the combat experience you get from SF2 and DCS World. It is fun to operate the systems with most if not all of the buttons/switches working per the manuals, but the radar and weapons modeling is really basic... more on par with Jane's Fighters Anthology than SF2 or DCS World. You can set up cool air-to-ground missions with lots of AI traffic, but the only semi-realistic opponent are SA-2 SAMs. So it is great for making screenshots and after action reports, but worthless for anyone looking for a good ACM experience. I haven't tried using multiplayer to make up for the lack of AI, but I suspect my dislike of the somewhate simple weapons and radar modeling would make even multiplayer dogfights less than thrilling in an FSX/TacPack environment.

In the mean time, Belsimtek has released the F-5E and announced an upcoming F-4E for DCS World. I don't see much more of my  time or money being spent on FSX or any of its derivatives at this point unless FSX/TacPack takes a giant leap forward to catch up in modeling key parameters for combat: weapons, sensors, and AI.

P.S. Despite the promise of an advanced external flight model, I have never bothered with the Milviz F-4E. Per the above screenshot, they couldn't even get the 3d model correct. The oversized bulbous canopy bothers me so much that I refuse to buy it... unless the entire package (aircraft, tacpack supplement, advanced flight model) goes on sale for a really low price this Christmas. Their last sale tempted me... but the advanced flight model wasn't available yet and the 3d model is so repulsive that I easily passed up a 50% off sale.