[RELEASED] F4F-4 Wildcat | Got Friends

I can quickly chime in on this topic as well. Our team develops within the Blender space of 3D Modeling habits. I personally do not believe Unique ID Bits are supported yet with Asobo’s Blender Plugin. I could be wrong, and if so, I would like further information. I know it’s possible to Override Unique ID within the MSFS Properties tab, but that feature seems to be clickable yet inoperative within the latest Blender Plugin.

GREAT - Mission Accomplished – got @DigitalJonx 's interest !!!

MSG me if you have an interest to discuss this further :wink:

Your public info is hidden, unable. Please message me.
/ Cheers

CFS2 was such a great game!


I was going to mention this also, so thank you for bringing it up!

If anybody has crash damage on in the attempt of “realism”, then I don’t think they’re getting what they think they are.

I’ve had plenty of harder landings in a PA-28 IRL that caused no problem, but seriously wouldn’t get through the system in-sim if I had crash damage on.

I’ve had the same with steep turns which also seriously wouldn’t cause a problem, but the simulator flags them as one.

If someone wants realism that’s completely fine, I just don’t think crash damage is portraying it accurately.


@NoahTurtles8646 and @Editer all fair points but that brings up another question. What are the devs doing to report theses issues to Microsobo?

If the implementation is so bad why is everyone ok to continue tolerating it and forcing the devs to make creative workarounds?

I too “know” when I crash, but I’m probably lying about it. Like, I definitely didn’t prop strike while porpoising on that landing, and I definitely didn’t scrape a wing tip on that ground loop, and you could call that a hard landing, but the gear isn’t bent. The sim says so. Not to mention all the stuff I just didn’t see at all, clipping trees and lights…

…which is why I don’t like turning off crash detection because Asobo has no damage modeling. We’ve been asking for it since the sim was released in '20, but they refuse to do it, because crashing isn’t a part of the fairy tale gumdrops and rainbows world they’re trying create here, when rather it’s a real part of flying, one that requires you fly the plane through the crash and not just immediately fade to black.

Hopefully they take note of how well third parties are implementing their own damage modeling and get on board. Third parties could become competitors to Asobo in that sense, showing them up at their own game.

1 Like

I’ll quickly reply here and then hopefully shift the focus back to the F4F-4 because ultimately this is what we ended up implementing.

The core conversation going on is in dispute to the “features” or “experience” Asobo implemented with Microsoft Flight Simulator.

The common term thrown around within the development community is “creative workarounds”, which arguably is true, yet inaccurate.

Asobo has released their “core” game experience. Yes, with updates, they have expanded these horizons and added additional content like Gliders, Helicopters, G-Suit Effects, Etc.

All that said, Asobo’s primary focus has always been dialing in the Flight Simulator and leaving “pushing the boundaries” to us developers.

Helicopters were released before Asobo. Gliders were released before Asobo. Almost everything seen as a “creative workaround” was released before Asobo. At the end of the day it shouldn’t be considered a workaround, but a creative push towards expanding the limits of MSFS. No one is at fault here, Asobo has provided us with a toolset that allows for creativity and developers, like us, push that technology to see how far the system can go.

While I would love to see Asobo address certain areas like crash physics, droppable objects, and better supercharger dynamics, I am so glad they focus on the “core” experience. Without weather systems, online server support, and stable flight mechanics, “we” as developers wouldn’t be able to hand you stable products even at the lowest level of creativity.

With every game, you’re going to have developers expand the possibilities through 3rd party modding. This game is no exception and the blame should never be on either the studio or the 3rd party for pushing a new idea.

So what do we do as 3rd Parties to ensure MORE 3rd Parties implement these features? We share our coding, our expertise, and our time with other developers. I already do this and manage the biggest group of 3rd Party Aircraft developers in MSFS.

At the end of the day, although considered “workarounds”, everything that pushes MSFS’ limits are creative design choices.

Got Friends are KNOWN for our creative choices. We made the first native glider in the simulator, we implemented multiplayer smoke for the first time, we created the first custom physics engine with the Astro One, we brought free-castoring tail wheels to the community, and now the first droppable weapons to MSFS. Whether or not these features are agreed upon to make a core difference to MSFS, it doesn’t matter, what matters is the technology being developed behind the scenes.

We can utilize our custom physics engine to bring the Hindenburg back to life, we can use droppable objects to bring Virgin Galactic to the simulator and we can utilize multiplayer creativities to ensure the best possible experience is passed on through the multiplayer enviroment. You have to push boundaries in order to see the possibilities.

It comes down to one point really, if you don’t like flying aircraft that are pushing boundaries, than stick with Asobo Stock Aircraft that come with the game. Those are 100% taking advantage of ONLY the simulator and not trying to push the system to it’s limits. Anything else is considered experimental and you are paying for that experience. If you aren’t ok paying for an experience developed by 4 guys living in their garage, then you probably wouldn’t have purchased your operating system to begin with.

It’s a tough world out there, but the answer is never to stop pushing limits and wait for official support.

Experiment, Push, Polish, Release, Update, Repeat.

This is how you make a difference and change the core experience…



Maybe not a coincidence this reminded me of Mike Patey’s YouTube intro, well said!

And that’s why we like devs like GotFriends but it shouldn’t be at the expense of core features.

Your response is very eye opening but the point is me and may others play “stable” not “beta” to call everything “experimental” is seriously inaccurate advertising. If you want to put a beta tag on each of your products go at it as that is what you seem to be indicating of the sim as a whole.

I don’t get involved in beta testing for this reason but it’s slowly becoming clear that is what FS2020 was and they want us to pay again for 2024. Software Mafia at work once again.

This ultimately is why paying for the experience is up to the end user. Got Friends has made it our primary responsibility to share our development insights with our community prior to releases. We make flight manuals available publicly, we share development in real-time, and we tell you straight-up why we implement something outside of official support before release.

This can’t be said about all developers.

We are doing our part. We are giving you the proper information before you spend your cash. If you don’t support our approach, there are hundreds of other developers to gamble with. The choice is yours and ultimately, we aren’t going to trade “honesty” for “strategy”. That is why this conversation is happening in the first place on one of our threads.



Would you mind taking this discussion to its own thread please. We all understand how you feel. The subject is worth discussing with people who are interested in discussing it. The dev has answered your question for this plane.

I’m not trying to diss how you feel or what you want. But GotFriends can’t change what is, and they’ve discussed their choices on the matter.


This thread obviously needs more Wildcatfish

Also I was thinking about the properly droppable bombs which I’m really excited about and I was wondering if it’d be possible to code up some sort of target range object that tells you how far away your bombs dropped from the centre? I know next to nothing about coding apart from 10 PRINT FÁRT 20 GOTO 10 and some html so I have no idea how feasible this would be. Would be very cool though.


We did have an internal discussion that would display a white line that protrudes from the explosion site and display distance from drop location. Ultimately, it was deemed as a UI Overlay and would distract from those who enjoy a minimal UI / Realistic oversight.

On the topic of the beloved Catfish… Every dollar spent on release is another minute opening our team up to further possibilities… keep that in your back pocket, I know I have :wink:


Fair enough. I’ll just have to stretch my neck around and watch where they land before giving myself a 10/10 score. And now it seems I have to buy dozens of Wildcats.

1 Like

Hopefully our incorporation will inspire some scenery developers to create global bomb-ranges that may aid in your scoring :slight_smile:

At least one can dream. Is that another idea in my back pocket? Dang, my pockets getting pretty big!


There’s some ranges out there already like Nevada and Utah. Bit on the modern side though.

And Pembrey in Wales

And just spotted a new one, Tain up in Scotland


Curiously along both of these lines of discussion, the international seaplane flyin at Moosehead Lake in Maine has a balloon “bombing” competition. I was looking for some pictures of it, but couldn’t find any, but I’m at work.


(not to mention I also created some scenery for the Lake with a ton of dock parking locations and even a couple of lane parking where you can drive into the water in an amphibious plane)

I think the new Beale AFB scenery from Blackbird has a bomb target out near the radar array, no scoring though

My go-to for bombing practice is Edwards AFB, specifically the giant compass rose in the sand. Very easy target.