F16C at Org

[Simmo W]

oh dear, just advertised I see. I love the F16 with a passion, but something about this just doesn't quite look right. What do u think!? Awaaaay we go..

[Simmo W]

forgot to make my deep and meaningful statement- like a great heavy, the first dev to make an excellent quality military fighter will do very well and further impress the msfs ers

[Malchaeus]

forgot to make my deep and meaningful statement- like a great heavy, the first dev to make an excellent quality military fighter will do very well and further impress the msfs ers

Too true. I'm watching this one to see how buyers respond. Fighters have never seemed very popular around the X-universe, but it's hard to say whether its a supply or demand problem. Plenty of people have told me, "you have to try so-and-so's plane!" but I've been largely unimpressed with the fighters available to this point. There are a couple exceptions, which fly fine and are exciting to take through the Grand Canyon, but by-and-large, there's a serious fighter deficit in the sim. I hope the F-16 changes that.

[dpny]

forgot to make my deep and meaningful statement- like a great heavy, the first dev to make an excellent quality military fighter will do very well and further impress the msfs ers

Greg Hofer already makes the amazing CF-104, and is working on his own F-16.

[Simmo W]

Ha, just saw the first funny/sad bit - 'detailed pilot', check 'it' out, the aliens have landed

[Simmo W]

forgot to make my deep and meaningful statement- like a great heavy, the first dev to make an excellent quality military fighter will do very well and further impress the msfs ers

Greg Hofer already makes the amazing CF-104, and is working on his own F-16.

thanks! can't wait, any idea when

[blizzard84]

You can find all the info on Greg's F-16 and its development here: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=44725

This is what really gets me, like many I would like to see nice fighter for xplane and I found the post in the link provided above a while back. I have the Starfighter and absolutely love it and plan on getting his F-16. I also have JCS's F4-U and its also nicely detailed. In my opinion its not up to the quality of Greg's work, but still enjoyable. JCS's F-16 looks really nice, but I'm not sure if I want to purchase it when Greg's is supposed to come out this fall.

[dpny]

You can find all the info on Greg's F-16 and its development here: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=44725

This is what really gets me, like many I would like to see nice fighter for xplane and I found the post in the link provided above a while back. I have the Starfighter and absolutely love it and plan on getting his F-16. I also have JCS's F4-U and its also nicely detailed. In my opinion its not up to the quality of Greg's work, but still enjoyable. JCS's F-16 looks really nice, but I'm not sure if I want to purchase it when Greg's is supposed to come out this fall.

Holding planes up to the quality of Greg's work means you probably won't buy any other planes, as his -104 is probably the most realistic jet aircraft for X-Plane, ever. Greg's background is, partly, making sims for military training, so he doesn't just model a plane, he really simulates it. The -104 includes a plugin which accurately calculates drag and engine performance in the trans- and supersonic range, something X-Plane doesn't do very well. And, as you (like me) own it, you know what an amazing thing it is.

That said, I just bought the JCS F-16 and spent an hour flying it around Edwards. It's another great plane from them, and I enjoyed it immensely. Curiously, it is a little more of a fps hit than the -104.

[Ben Russell]

Greg has started out-sourcing his 3D work to a "professional" agency.

Unfortunately that just leads to bland water color textures, and that's why (imo) it looks wrong.

All his work prior leaves it in the dust.

His avionics and systems modelling is where Greg really shines.

[blizzard84]

Its not that I'm holding every plane up to Greg's standards, I just find it surprising that JCS would make a payware F16 when Greg's should come out sometime in the near future. I know the kind of work Greg does because I have followed his projects since way back when and they really are amazing aircraft with all the systems integrated into it. I pretty much put Greg's stuff on a different level On a side note thanks for letting us know about the JCS F16.. like I said I own the F4-U so I know it's probably very well done, but I'll most likely wait for Greg's. If x-plane.org has another sale I might think about it.

[Ben Russell]

Err...

Why is there a screenshot of the F-16 on a carrier?

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=237

(Yes, I know it has an emergency hook.... Yes I know it's fun, I still think it's stupid marketing.)

[Ben Russell]

Yeah, I sure wanna look through pond scum all day.

[dpny]

Its not that I'm holding every plane up to Greg's standards, I just find it surprising that JCS would make a payware F16 when Greg's should come out sometime in the near future. I know the kind of work Greg does because I have followed his projects since way back when and they really are amazing aircraft with all the systems integrated into it. I pretty much put Greg's stuff on a different level On a side note thanks for letting us know about the JCS F16.. like I said I own the F4-U so I know it's probably very well done, but I'll most likely wait for Greg's. If x-plane.org has another sale I might think about it.

You're assuming perfect knowledge on the part of JCS. In all likelihood the plane's been under construction for many months, and it's likely they started it before Greg began to announce his F-16.

[Malchaeus]

Ah, a moment of clarity. I thought the JCS version just released was Greg's. Should read more carefully.

I haven't flown the 104 yet. Heard it was a bit of a frame hog, which makes me feel "iffy" about putting money into it. But if the 104's reviews are anything to go by, Greg's F-16 should be amazing.

[Paraffin]

Okay, honest opinion: That is one ugly model (IMO). There is no surface detail texture, just a flat expanse of gray. The lack of texture makes it look more like a freebie user-made plane than payware, at least until you get into the cockpit view. Look at the skin texturing on the Aerosoft version for FSX for comparison, and that model only costs $10 more:

http://www.aerosoft.de/_php_projekte/_php_screenshots/screenshots.php?sp=fsx&p=f16

The cockpit doesn't look bad, except for that awful blocky HUD display. No screen shots of cockpit night lighting effects. I don't know how well it flies, but (IMO) the author(s) should have charged $10 more and tightened up the graphics (assuming the flight model and systems modeling are good enough).

[StevenM]

Somehow the lighting of the textures seem a bit off, maybe it's just me.

For F16 lover who want to obliterate stuff virtually (what's the point of a fighter jet anyway?), the word on the street is that Graphsim is busy with a port of Fallon 4 Allied Force to the Mac.

[Warmbrak]

I am glad someone brought the topic up. I have been flying the Falcon series since the early days (more than 20 years now  ), and during the evolution of Falcon 4 there has been some really impressive modeling of the various models of the F-16 (Look at FreeFalcon 5+ today). If I am not mistaken, the F-16C sold on the Org resembles the Block 40 with the FLIR projection HUD. This version was optimised for night operations, and IIRC projected the forward looking infra-red image directly on the HUD. This data came from the LANTIRN pod, which has not been modeled on this offering. On the outside one can see those vanes on the nose directly in front of the canopy (sorry, cannot remember what they are called). Based on what I remember those were not found on the Block 40, unless they were added later.

Let me get to my point - this is a mix & match F-16C, with some elements of the real one thrown together for those folks who would like to fly a virtual F-16 but does not really care about what the real thing looks like. Nothing wrong with that, but just not everyone's cup of tea. Although the 3D cockpit appears to be of high quality, it lacks realism that can only be privided by plugins that will require an insane amount of effort. The HUD looks functional, but appears to lack basic symbology such as the flight path marker. The F-16 HUD symbology is a science in itself, especially when it comes to instrument approaches and and angle of attack. The lack of the flight path marker shows that this is not a IFR model either.

The "Detailed Pilot" is way out of proportion, which detracts from the quality of the external 3D model which is done quite well. Textures could be better to compliment the external model - and I agree that the undercarriage is very nicely done. One can see that a lot of work went into this model, and I really commend JCS on the effort. This is not what I am looking for in a model though, and will patiently await Greg's version. 

[XPAfrica]

i'll wait for greg's version, i love greg's planes, in fact, i think i love greg :lol: - seriously though, the CF-104 is incredible and if the F16 is just half as good, i'll be a client for this one immediately!

[MaidenFan]

I can't wait for Greg's F-16. It's got realistic instruments and a darn better HUD.