Leaderboard

You cannot expect us to buy that "open source" documentation and looking over a dude's shoulder at a trade show constitutes enough to make a FF module of one of the newest frontline jets. This is absurd. Credibility shattering even. We moaned about the paper plane J8, but this...... 10 years of flying DCS and this is what it's becoming. Okay then.

Why the F-35A? The F-35 is rapidly becoming the backbone of tactical combat aviation of many countries. Its combination of low observability, sensor fusion, and advanced sensors has brought 5th generation combat aviation to today’s battlefield. We chose to simulate this aircraft based on its fame and the large number of both combat aviation enthusiasts and more casual virtual pilots that are eager to experience its capabilities on the modern, virtual battlefield that only DCS can offer. What version of the F-35? We will first release the F-35A. We may later also offer the F-35B Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) and F-35C aircraft carrier catapult versions, but this has yet to be determined. How will you simulate it given the lack of reference documents? Starting around 2010, hands-on F-35 demonstrations became commonplace at defense tradeshows. These featured detailed system demonstrations that covered a broad range of operations and capabilities that provided great insight into the operation of the aircraft across different mission types. Our goal is to create an F-35A simulation that combines this wealth of data with academic papers, public sub-systems data, and common Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) to fill in only a few areas lacking any information (like other existing DCS aircraft). Compared to other modern aircraft, we’ve discovered a great deal more information about its operation than most 4 and 4+ generation aircraft. Our F-35A will not be based on guesswork, watching air shows, Wikipedia or anything like that. Rather it is being designed in relation to credible data that we feel very confident will provide a good representation of what it is to operate this aircraft in the context of a study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment market. When will it be available? Development will start in earnest in 2025, with a release goal in 2026. This is subject to change. When we have a more specific date, we will update this FAQ. How much will it cost? The specific cost has yet to be determined for the F-35A, but it will be in-line with pricing of other full-fidelity, complex, modern aircraft in DCS. What weapons will be included?The complete weapons suite of a US F-35A in the 2015-time frame is planned. This includes the internal 25mm cannon, AIM-9X, AIM-120, GBU-31, GBU-32, and GBU-12. This list is subject to change during development. What countries will be included? The F-35A as operated by the US Air Force simulated but will have liveries for several countries including Australia, Norway, The Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. More may be added later. How will you model its low observable characteristics? This will be based on open-source data and account for radar angle, range, and external stores, and open bays. How will you simulate the flight model given the lack of flight performance data? This would be derived from a combination of open-source performance charts, public F-35A pilot accounts of unique handling characteristics to test against, and Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) studies. Would this not unbalance DCS? Larger numbers of hostile aircraft can outweigh the F-35A's advantages in single-player missions (player versus environment). It will also lend itself well to cooperative multiplayer missions that are created to challenge F-35A pilots. Whilst in multiplayer player-versus-player, the F-35A will initially be the 800-pound gorilla in the room, its advantages can be offset with limited slots, creative mission building, and the later introduction of more comparable aircraft like the Eurofighter and others.

I was a crew chief on the 35 and I can tell you with 100 percent certainty, you do not have any documentation for the 35. There’s no way you have access to ALIS. Hell, we couldn’t even get some answers during our engine training cause it was proprietary info from P&W, or the fact that they had to spend three hours declassifying the sim so we could use it for engine run class. I hope that you stop the whole “we cant use those docs/Youtube videos aren’t reliable” routine for other things since this is literally what you’ll be using for the 35. This statement bellow kind of destroys your credibility as it is, since you’re already admitting that you haven’t started development, you don’t know what you’ll end up with, and you’ve already announced it. I don’t mind you guys making the 35, it’ll be nice to start her up again. Kind of like when the Hornet came out, it was like coming back home. But stop with the most realistic schtick and “not enough documentation” schtick. I personally would have rather you announced a partnership with AI ATC, or Viacom Pro, or SRS, or any other members of the community that make DCS’s shortcomings better. I love flying in DCS, but those features are far more important to me than some fake as hell FF F-35A.

This makes a mockery of every time anyone was told a system was impossible to produce in DCS because there wasn't enough documentation.

Why the F-15C? The F-15C has been a pillar of United States, and other nations, air superiority for decades. While the F-15C has featured in Lock On and then the Flaming Cliffs series, it’s now time for a full-fidelity simulation of this legendary fighter. A full-fidelity F-15C will join the F-14, F-16C, and F/A-18C to round out US 4th generation fighters in DCS. It will also serve as a great counterpart to the upcoming MiG-29A. What version of the F-15C? As with the Flaming Cliffs version, it will be an F-15C Multi-Stage Improvement Program (MISP) II as operated by the US Air Force in the early 2000s. This will feature either the AN/APG-63(V)1 or AN/APG-70 radars (TBD which one), Programable Armaments Control System (PACS), the JTIDS datalink with Situational (SIT) Display, and Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System (JHMCS) with AIM-9X. It will be powered by two F100-PW-220 engines. Will it just be an updated Flaming Cliffs F-15C? Not at all. The entire external model and cockpit will be rebuilt to meet 2025 graphical standards. The avionics, sensor, and weapon systems will be at the highest level of fidelity with a fully interactive cockpit. While the flight model will be based on the Flaming Cliffs version, it will be further improved. Please note the Flaming Cliffs version will remain unchanged. When will it be available? Development will start in earnest in 2025, with a release goal in 2026. This is subject to change. When we have a more specific date, we will update this FAQ. How much will it cost? The specific cost has yet to be determined for the F-15C, but it will be in line with the pricing of other full-fidelity, complex, modern aircraft in DCS. What weapons will be included? The complete weapons suite of a US F-15C in the mid-2000s time frame is planned. This includes the internal M61A2 20mm cannon, AIM-9L/M/P3/X, AIM-7F/M/MH, and AIM-120B/C. As this is based on the US F-15C, it solely carries air-to-air weapons. What countries will be included? There will be a single F-15C version as operated by the US Air Force, but it will have liveries for several countries' liveries including Japan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

A number of more qualified people have discussed the alleged inability of ED to fully realize this module, they make good points. I want to press a different angle, one that I feel I have a modicum of qualification to comment on. Let's suppose that ED does, in fact have the capability, willingness and stamina to accurately model this F-35. Let's suppose that it is actually realized, a full-fidelity, fully modeled and perfect aircraft dropped into the game. What the heck is it going to do here? This isn't about balance, I don't care about that. The F-35, in this game, would be a profoundly boring experience for those who want to use it for what it was designed. It is so profoundly powerful, high-tech and potent that I can't imagine I would find it very interesting in the environment of this game, or any game for that matter. Further, there is a massive gulf in what this game has vs what it needs to have for such a jet to even really exist. Let's discuss a theoretical sortie involving a 4 ship of Player F-35s vs a modern red SAM battery as an example. Realistically we are looking at more aircraft for CAP but let's ignore that. The pilots first plan and brief the mission, then walk out to the jets, inspect them and get in (none of which we can do) They start up the jet with the assistance of one or more crew chiefs (that we don't have) They communicate with Ground, C2 and probably tech support because 2010s and 4 F-35s (we don't have these things), also with each other (they actually don't, we still don't have working VOIP) They taxi and get armed up at EOR (we don't have this) They take off and check in (with C2 that we don't have) They get handed off to the main freq (I don't know 100% how it works but it is worth noting that our E-3 version is out of date, the ABM system is incorrect and the main freq doesn't exist) They probably tank (not possible to realistically do with our systems) They proceed on mission. The enemy probably can't see them, if they do it's with radars we don't have, maybe they do and send some 4th gens to intercept. Perhaps some modern Su-27, MiG-29 (no), J-20 (lol) or J-10s. We don't have any of these but even if we did they would all die, likely before seeing the F-35s. Said F-35s may use targeting data from the modern E-3 we don't have in order to launch the proper AMRAAMs we don't have via datalink. The enemy aircraft aren't even warned of the launch. This is one of the major points. It's not just about what is in the game but what exists in real life in the first place. The F-35 is just so good it's boring. Nobody is making it to WVR, the nerfed C-3 we have has nothing on a proper D-X. They reach the SAMs they need to take out. They could jam the radars we don't have using EW methods that aren't modeled but instead they just fly about 15 miles out and drop SDBs that the enemy can't intercept. Perhaps they have some GBU-12s that need to be disposed of so they just cruise in at 15k and drop them on the operator's foreheads. Second point. The best SAM we have right now is the S-300PS and its modeling is tremendously simplified. A system possibly older than the pilots attacking it. ED has a track record of adding 'new' SAMs at an absolutely glacial pace and nothing we have right now would be a significant threat to a proper F-16C Bl.50, much less a 5th gen. What system could ED possibly add that would be kosher for their employees to model and have a chance against an F-35? Are you suggesting that between now and the F-35 release, ED will not only make leaps and bounds in SAM system modeling but also introduce several new systems that have been requested for years with no shown interest from you? IIRC ED hasn't even developed a single TVM system yet! They fly back, maybe they are chased but probably not. If they are, it's a repeat of the previous scenario. They contact the Ops we don't have, do the code call that we can't, go through the ATC ladder that we don't have, land at the airfield, de-arm with the non-existant EOR crew and then debark and go to the debriefing room we don't have. Repeat for a couple days and the enemy, any one, is crushed. Does that really sound that interesting? Even if we are to believe that you will be able to safely and correctly model the F-35 (when you can't even seem to add failures, proper AMRAAMs, correct 3D models or finished systems to your representation of the most common fixed-wing military aircraft in existence), make tremendous gains in gamewide systems modeling and do everything else that's needed, where's the fun in it? The aircraft wasn't designed to be a challenge, it wasn't made to have difficult mission scenarios. Are we just supposed to have the enemies in our scenarios send mobs of comparatively obsolete 4th gen aircraft at it? Sure, it would be fun to fly around I suppose, but beyond that, nothing we have in real life and certainly nothing in-game besides other F-35s would be able to make taking one on a combat sortie interesting. I get the argument that this takes resources from core improvements, I know that you can't just ask developer in specialty x to work in area y. That being said, I believe that the resources being allocated for the F-35 project probably could have been better used with a different aircraft, of which there are many options I would recommend. Given your lowered bar for fidelity, wouldn't it make more sense to develop more modern variants of existing modules, for example an F-16C from 2015? Perhaps a more modern F-15C? Maybe you could even finish the current modules? This venture just doesn't make sense to me.

Sorry, @NineLine, but the statement that You have enough material to build a full-fidelity F-35 and assume that it halfway comes close to the real aircraft is the most ridiculous sentence I've read for long. Not even the pilots of the plain vanilla neighbour F-16 squadron in the USAF have the full inside knowledge of what the guys in the adjacent F-35 unit can actually do with their birds. It is the most classified aircraft in history, I suppose. What You see officially reveals a maximum of 30 per cent of the capability of the aircraft. Not even enough to basically understand its full mission fundamentals in air warfare. Ever wondered why nations like Switzerland chose the F-35 although it looks that it is not suitable for the mountain environment and the missions of the aircraft it replaces? It is because that all what You can find in official sources is only a fragment of the actual performance. Then a non-F-35 nation's unit, the German Weapons School for its 2021 course got a special clearance from the US and a limited briefing about the capabilities of the bird so that we could work together in a tactical situation with the Dutch F-35s in the final exercise (usually a F-35 pilot has to shut down all his sensors when other aircraft are near). That clearance was renewed for the 2023 weapons instructor course (then we were at least a soon-to-be F-35 nation). From this limited briefing I got an even more limited briefing and I can tell You that what You find officially or in generic videos allows You to recreate only a module which in no way can reach any standard You have set for DCS before. A cripple module. To choose the F-35 will of course bring You money (not from me) and that's okay. But as I assume that You are not fed with highly restricted informations which will give You a jail time if used it would be more honest not to put sand in the eyes of Your customers: Your F-35 will in any case only be a shadow of the real aircraft.

It is sad, indeed, to see a very loud minority of DCS users find any reason they can to complain about what is perhaps the most exciting news DCS has seen since its launch. For many, myself included, the thought of an F-35 in DCS, just yesterday, was just entirely unthinkable. It is hard to believe that anybody making comments about "PVP multiplayer balance" is taken seriously. In many years past, they would have been laughed off the forum. DCS certainly has changed. Like many, I have reservations about fidelity. As someone who has flown one and only one module, the A-10C for 11 years, I have no shortage of things I could say regarding undelivered features, fidelity, and much needed core improvements. Small, incremental improvements can and do come over time. I remember being ecstatic when the Long Pod came to the A-10C or when ED finally changed the default cold and dark position of the boost pump switches. This F-35 venture ED is embarking on certainly appears unconventional for their normal approach. To the ED Team: I hate you. Give me those HMCS & TAD features and ITTs over 800. I love you. Thank you for 11 years of a fantastic hobby. We are all fortunate to see what the future has in store for this new and exciting chapter of DCS.

NineLine, this would leave the community to believe you have inside knowledge of the F-35, resources not available to the public, or know people in the F-35 community that are feeding you information. That leads to one of 2 possible solutions, A: Everything you have is something we could acquire as a community because its open source and either in a book or online, or B: someone within a military branch be it US for FMS is feeding you information about the aircraft which I can absolutely verify would be illegal. The bottom line, you just argued with a REAL F-35 maintainer and told him you have resources he could not even obtain in the US Military working on this aircraft. Why is it so hard to acknowledge this aircraft cannot possibly be done to the level of the F-16, F-18, A-10C II and all the other aircraft ED has produced. THAT IS THE POINT. You are taking on a project that does not coincide with Eagles Dynamics core principles of creating authentic and realistic aircraft. You literally are taking away your own identity and trading it for a module that may come 15% close to the real thing if even that. Look at the backlash you guys are taking after revealing this today. I can promise you this is not a small 10% of total customers. I would typically be on your side with 9 out 10 things, but this module is not helping DCS. It is telling the community that everything you have told us from the start about authenticity, hard work to obtain data, realistic scans of the aircraft, speaking with real fighter's pilots about the performance of these aircraft, and recreating them to the fullest of their real counterpart is not your objective anymore. Its pushing out a product that look flashy but does not hold up to the core values of this company and what we love about DCS world. Leave the F-35 to MSFS and bring us something realistic to DCS. This is a bad move, you cannot possibly create this module to the level of detail you proclaim to you can and it will only burn ED's image, not help it. You have attracted so many former and current military men and women to your product, including this guy. You are going to have a very hard battle straight up hill convincing any of us that this will be an authentic representation of the F-35. I have said it a lot today, this is a bad move for Eagle Dynamics.

Well, folks I watched DCS Worlds 2025 and Beyond video and I didn't see any ship mods for us Mariners as always. I guess we will have to make our own 2025 Beyond models. Stay tuned!

What an absolute joke. I play DCS because I can cope that things are simulated to at least a bare minimum of """"realism"""" but there's just no way to get even close to that with an F-35. If you want to guesstimate something how about you guesstimate a MiG-31 to get some semblance of parity for red vs blue?

It will be like anything, and even the responses you allude to from us, some systems we will be able to do well, some we will be able to do ok, some we may not be able to do hardly at all. As we start development we will see where it all comes out, and share this with you all. I need to continue to stress, research on this aircraft has been going for 2+ years. We would not take this step without a reasonable amount of information being available to do this aircraft.

The 35 we wanted null

Tell your community "we are desperate" without spelling "we are desperate"

Господин, вы просто скажите, вам самому ок, что разработчик который всегда в первую очередь продавал свои продукты реализмом, тем самым собрав вокруг себя костяк игроков, собирается разрабатывать ЛА по буклетам и фото?) Вы реально не видите проблемы? Чиж, мне искренне по человечески обидно, столько лет шли к будущему, ради такого?

Thanks for your answer. So, if the said « standard » can varies between aircraft, it doesn’t really exist. The problem is that people here are used to a certain standard of fidelity, and they consider that if this standard can't be reached with a certain aircraft... They'd rather not see resources allocated to the development of said aircraft, in favor of another aircraft that could reach the desired community standard. Anyway, yeah sure, we’ll always have the wallet vote. But seeing DCS losing it’s edge is not what we wanted.

NL your belief is wrong. It will not be realistic. But if you want to claim that it’s realistic to YouTube videos then I would believe that. I am not a SME on the 35. I was a crew chief on it for like 5 years, no where near long enough to be a SME. I am not claiming to be one, but I know what we had to do the job and what we didn’t have. So if I lacked a lot of documentation to be good at the job as a mechanic, there is no way you have enough to make this accurate. But as others have pointed out, only a handful will truly know the difference. Myself not being one of them.

The negativity on here is crazy. But I suspect it is the minority that is the loudest. You don't need to buy the plane and you don't need to fly it. I'm sure servers will limit it where necessary to maintain the experience for its regulars. This is incredibly positive imo. I started flying DCS right when the A-10C first came out back in around 2011 I think. To think where it has come in this years is hard to believe. The talk back then was a 3rd party Mig-21 to be the first "fast jet" in the sim, and now we are well and truly spoiled with the selection we have. If ED didn't take these massive leaps then we would still be flying just a small handful of aircaft. So I have to respect it. Personally I'm most excited by the Typhoon - and I think this talks to my point as well that there will be an aircraft for every one to get immersed in. All this will do is bring more attention, customers and ultimately funding to ED, allowing them to continue doing what they're doing in allowing us to live out our fantasy Imagine where we could be in 10 years time...

Dude, it won’t even be 30%. I’m sorry man. I am not doubting the hard work you’ve put into it, but it won’t be realistic at all. Again I’d rather other, far more important things worked on and finished. I love the Hornet you’ve made, it’s pretty close to what I remember working on even down to the sound of the engines coming on line. But the 35 is a horse of a different color. And yes in case your wondering I did work on both aircraft for two different branches.

No, that is not true. a Superhornet, these days, is very possible. Data on them is not an issue. Thanks.

This looks like a cash grab TBH. There is no way they can model the F-35 to FF standard based on airshow videos and pilot feedback only. But it will definitely sell to the crowd that wants the latest most performant planes at all cost. Imagine how much dev time this project will take away from much needed core improvements such as AI, dynamic campaign, VR performance, etc. Also, if proper documentation is no longer needed for a module, can we get some Flankers in here?

If you don't like, then don't buy it. At the end money speaks. For me it's a very welcomed surprise. I am glad I can fly the F-35 in DCS as well simulated as currently possible before I am dead.

17 January 2025 Dear Fighter Pilots, Partners and Friends, Our traditional yearly showcase of what’s on the horizon is out at last. Check out the video, we hope you will enjoy it. Thank you! Watch now! We have prepared a tire-strut suspension modelling white paper that focuses on the current development of our advanced tire and suspension physics. Our aim is to improve a far more realistic look and feel and deliver a more true to life taxi, takeoff and landing experience. The winners of the DCS: Mi-24P Hind livery competition are in! We are pleased to present you with 3 winners and 8 runners up. Check out the details below. Thank you to all participants, we look forward to seeing you in the next one. Thank you for your passion and support. Yours sincerely, Eagle Dynamics 2025 and Beyond A Look Ahead 2025 promises to be a busy and exciting year for Eagle Dynamics, with the continued improvement of DCS Core, the enhancement of existing modules, and the launch of new and valuable products. Along with our 3rd party affiliates, we aim to elevate DCS to new heights and we hope that this video offers a good glimpse into some of the exciting things we are up to. While several of the products featured will be released in 2025, the video also focuses on our development priorities and objectives, many of which such as Dynamic Campaign, have been in the works for far longer than planned, draining more resources than expected, and sometimes creating frustration for many. This seems to be a constant with technology and engineering projects the world over and ‘par for the course’. But as we push the envelope and seek to achieve ever higher levels of realism and authenticity, we promise to do our very best to meet your expectations. Thank you for standing with us and for helping us improve and grow DCS, and thank you for your understanding and support as we move onwards and upwards. Landing Gear Modelling Development Progress Previously relying on a simplified single-component system, our team has transitioned to a two-component model (strut and tire), solving complex second-order nonlinear differential equations to replicate real-world suspension behavior. The new model supports various suspension types, such as oleo-pneumatic, rubber stack, and spring-oleo systems, allowing high-precision tuning using drop-test data. A specialized tool was developed to simulate drop tests, ensuring accuracy in energy absorption, displacement, and force metrics. Tests based on real-world Mi-38 helicopters and WWII-era Bf-109E warbird undercarriage performance demonstrate the model's versatility when compared to similar aircraft in DCS (the Mi-8 and Bf-109K-4), even when dealing with conflicting reference data. These advancements allow for realistic suspension behavior across multiple aircraft types, enhancing the overall flight model fidelity. Please read about the extensive development process behind the new suspension model in the Tire Strut Suspension Modelling white paper. Mi-24P Hind Livery competition Please join us in congratulating the winners of the Mi-24P Hind Livery Competition! While our original plan was to select just three winners, the outstanding quality of so many submissions has led us to include more. Check out the winners below: Top Three Winners German Democratic Republic (GDR) Mi-24P, No. 361 - 100,000 ED Miles + 1 Free Eagle Dynamics Module Soviet Bagram - 50,000 ED Miles CZ Livery - 25,000 ED Miles Runner-Ups (Each Awarded 15,000 ED Miles) German Democratic Republic (GDR) post-unification Mi-24P, No. 361 US Coast Guard (Fictional) Bagram Soviet Schmerle Mi-24P – Polish 49 PŚB (49th Assault Helicopter Regiment) Mi-24P – Polish 56 BLot (56th Aviation Base) Bulgarian Air Force Bort 129 Mi-24P Azerbaijan Army 1993 Egyptian Air Force A huge thank you to everyone who participated, your continued passion and support drives the development of your DCS. We look forward to bringing you all these new liveries for the Mi-24P Hind in an upcoming update! Thank you again for your passion and support, Yours sincerely,

Alright... I've been seeing A LOT of people whining about the F-35s announcement, and it's made me decide to make this post. Now, disclaimer: I don't work for LM, I'm not in the USAF, and I don't work for ED. I'm a random civilian that plays DCS just like most of the people in this forum. My views on the introduction of the F-35 is that while, yes, she's gonna be hard to properly balance (being a stealth aircraft and all), that is more for us to worry about, and not ED. If you're playing on a Cold War server, or a mid-90s server, you'll never see an F-35 on your RWR. The people working those servers aren't likely to include them, unless they reduce the weapons and make them basically play F-117s. Modern servers are likely to only include a handful, but at the same time, are just as likely to have some on the RedFor side playing Felons or Checkmates. Now, to answer the big question everyone keeps asking: "How does Eagle Dynamics have enough information to model an F-35?" Towit: It's not some rare plane with only a handful that "Don't Exist". There's been over a thousand produced to date. It's a very well known plane right now thanks to various figures chiming their opinions on it. It's a widely exported aircraft as well, with a number of allies already operating them. As stated by ED themselves, the information they need to work on it is out there, even if it's not 100% accurate. Now, for those complaining about point 4, and the level of accuracy that can be achieved... If you hold that opinion, please chill. NONE of the modern aircraft in DCS are 100% accurate to their real-world counterparts. They're certainly close enough that in many cases we could hop into the pilots seat and start the plane up. But the only sims out there that are 100% accurate to the real thing are the ones actually used by real world air forces (because they kinda have to be). "How did ED get the information at all?" Well, I would wager that with the number of customers buying F-35s, it's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin was having issues keeping up with the demands for simulators as well. Seeing as DCS is as realistic as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if LM called Nick up and asked if ED could make a sim, with the added bonus of being allowed to make a module for us to play with in the process. But that's my theory. "Why can't ED add (insert RedFor jet)?" because where in the US, there's no law preventing them from making it. China and Russia are a bit more strict in how their kit is portrayed. For example, in Russia, right now, you can be put in prison if you claim that the T-34 is anything but the best tank of WW2 (news flash, it sucked. Shermans are better in every way. Change my mind). The US has no such law, and so long as the OEM is ok with it, you can feature it however you wish. So yeah. Me? I'm perfectly fine with the F-35A coming into DCS. I would've preferred the C, as I'm a Navy brat and like what the C offers, but I'll take the A. Heck, my reasoning for making this post was purely to shed some positivity here. I've seen an F-35 being put through its paces at a local airshow, and while I am no expert, I can say that it's leaps and bounds beyond what we have otherwise. No other aircraft (with one exception) can purposefully enter a flat spin like the F-35 can and just casually recover like it was nothing. Now... what are my expectations? Well... I don't expect its stealth to be true to the real thing. I expect that if I was in formation with an F-16 and we were approaching an S300 site, obviously the F-16's gonna be seen first, and shot at first. But the S300 likely won't see me until I'm like 15-20nmi away, and likely only because I just chucked a bunch of SDBs at it. I do expect its maneuverability to be in line with the real thing. It won't be as maneuverable as a Raptor or Su35, but it doesn't need to be. Frankly, if a Lightning is having to maneuver that close to an enemy, something's gone horribly wrong. I expect its datalink screen to almost look like the F10 map, because that's basically what it's got. Seriously, the F-35 can take information from ground, sea, and air assets and get a complete picture of the battle space. An F-35 pilot doesn't have to ID where the blues are, they know where they are to a degree that they can avoid Blue on Blue situations to levels even the Hog can't touch. I do expect that the cockpit will be pretty sparse. A big screen, a couple of backup instruments, radio and navigation switches, controls, and start-up switches, and that's it. There's not much to an F-35 cockpit, and the same holds true to the external model. So with that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're able to pre-order it by the end of this year, or early next. The only real challenge I see for ED is replicating the touch-screen functionalities as all the weapons the F-35 can carry are already in game, and the HUD functionality already exists in the JHMCS (just in reverse). Overall, I see good things on the horizon with the F-35. If you agree, let's hear it. If you think I'm a corporate Kiss-A... well, try to prove it. Tank out.

I'm bummed by this decision. I've always seen DCS as study level simming. We've complained about F16/18 and been told there is no data available etc for some stuff. EW has always been a sore subject. now we're going to introduce the world's most compex, technologically advanced airplane based on youtube videos, trade shows, and air shows with a sprinkle or some pilots about about it on podcasts? We're going from all available official documentation to this?!?! This is so sad. Yeah, people will buy it... I will probably buy it, but this is how we start turning into a community of war thunder.

проблема даже не в этом, а втом что древний су-25 на который куча открытых документов мы не можем сделать ибо там секретно всё, а ф-35 сделаем, по картинкам из инета. двойные стандарты не иначе. получается что ни одна отмазка почему нет су-25, 30, 35 и тд больше не катируется. нас кажется на...и.

Given the upcoming DCS F-35A module and after reading through some LM's technical papers about its performance and flight control system designs, I'd like to discuss what I believe might be the most challenging aspects of implementing the F-35's unique flight model and control laws, particularly its NDI (Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion) system. From what I understand, this would be the first implementation of an NDI-based flight control system in DCS. The key challenges I see are: 1. Onboard Model (OBM) and aerodynamic model. The F-35's NDI relies heavily on a detailed onboard model (OBM) of the aircraft's mass properties and stability/control characteristics. How ED is going to handle the complex aerodynamic modeling, especially in the high AOA and transonic regime is crucial, where you have: Nonlinear control effectiveness Strong control surface interactions Complex vortex systems and flow separation effects Transonic roll-off phenomena 2. Real-time Control Solution Computation. Unlike traditional scheduled-gain FBW systems, the NDI system computes control solutions on the fly. Does the DCS engine architecture allow for this kind of real-time computation without impacting performance? 3. Effector Blender Implementation. The effector blender needs to: Compute optimal control surface allocation in real-time Handle control priority shifts (like yaw vs. pitch priority for horizontal tails) Manage control surface interactions at high AOA Deal with control surface saturation and overflow conditions 4. Auto Recovery Systems. The integration of: Automatic Pitch Rocker (APR) for deep stall recovery. (Yes, the F-35 have deep stalls just like the F-16) Anti-spin modes Complex mode transition logic Adaptive filtering systems for yaw rate control It's also interesting to see how ED will handle the transition between different control modes (like the shift from traditional roll command to yaw rate command at high AOA) while maintaining the "feel" of the real aircraft. This would be a unique kind of FM and FCS to witness in DCS. Cheers and take a read at https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/5.9781624105678.0525.0574 (F-35 High Angle of Attack Flight Control Development and Flight Test Results)

I'll get the important part out of the way first: Developing a 5th Gen aircraft using the less "traditionally cited" forms of documentation (i.e. public, open-source media) to develop a full-fidelity module can only be seen as a relaxation or "downgrade" of the documentation required (at least by ED) to develop a full-fidelity module for DCS. Does this mean that, seeing as ED is doing it with the F-35, other third-parties or even ED itself can now make modules that it has otherwise said that documentation does not exist/not complete enough to develop a module? For example, part of the reason a Su-30 module (yes, I'm aware there is a pretty-well-put-together mod available) or Su-27 module does not exist has previous been explained away as not having enough documentation to simulate the aircraft. Would ED allow other aircraft to be developed into modules for DCS, using the same form of sources cited as being used in the development of the F-35 module? There are many, MANY examples of Su-30s at airshows and technical demonstrations etc... And, given this, does this also yield some hope that other aircraft already in DCS can receive upgrades to their systems and/or weapons? A great first-use test-case would be the "new" F-5E module upgrade - you can't tell me there's "more documentation" available on the F-35 and its complete systems and weapons, than there is for putting an extra pair of AAMs, AGM-65s and an IFR probe on the F-5E...

This is the point. It's not anymore (never really was, but it was close, and just took a big step down). Those of us who know how classified this aircraft truly is know it cannot be modelled to any level of detail that would constitute a full fidelity game, let alone a sim. I'm not sure the general population truly understands this. I think it's cool, I just think it's out of place (and out of character) for DCS. Maybe we're looking at another tier of fidelity - call it FC4 (low-fi), full fidelity (certain standards for documentation, etc), but in the middle drop a new one - high fidelity. Clickable cockpits, as accurate as possible but with the understanding that multiple assumptions and educated guesses have been made. Don't advertise it as full fidelity, give it it's own in between tier. FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Might alleviate much of our concerns about DCS lowering the standards for full fidelity, and open the door for others in the same high fidelity tier that can't quite be made to full fidelity standards.

...working on it...

Hello Nineline. The question is not whether the aircraft meets the DCS standard or not. The question is whether the DCS standard has been lowered to make it possible to create this module. Because that's what the people complaining here don't want: to see the modeling standard lowered. And since the fidelity level between ED modules and third-party modules is already disparate, the -35 announcement is everything but reassuring.

Look I don't want to fight with you on this anymore, it would be cool if you wanted to help out with things you could talk about, even testing it might be cool, but you are so negative, and I get it. This is a game, we are making a new product for it, it will be the most realistic F-35 out there, even if it is not near 100%. That is what I have for you, I do not doubt your knowledge and experience with the -35, and that is very cool. But we don't share everything we have, everything we are doing and everything we know or have contacts for. So we can keep going back and forth, or we can wait and see.

Guys, chill down! If you feel the F-35 will be a "forged" module simply don't buy it. There's no need to get out torches and pitchforks: let's let ED work and see what they are capable of doing, if the result is not to our liking no one is forcing us to buy it.

Wow. So, apparently there is not enough information to give FW-190 GM-1 system. All info is there, but one key peice is not documented enough to make simulation. But this is not the case with entire F-35 somehow.

Well good luck with this ED. Personally, I think you should focus on actually making sure that those modules you have released over the past god knows how many years I've given you, are actually finished and not borked on every patch release................... Along with missions............... Along with campaigns........... That would be nice.................. wouldn't it?

This airframe is what drew me to Lomac in 2003. Well played.

The entire platform of DCS live and dies on trust. Trust that EA products will be delivered, Trust that authenticity will be maintained. When a weapon, system, or item is removed as an early access deliverable, we could trust that while it was not great to see a feature we paid for be sidelined, at least it was in service to authenticity. We just spent months being told that the F-5 couldn't possibly have access to the AGM-65 because of a lack of documentation, despite clear indicators that the F-5 refresh would be a much more moving value proposition if ED would make a best guess on how the radar screen can be switched to MAV. But it made sense, DCS is a platform we trust not to make things up. The F-35 violates that trust both ways. I can't trust you will maintain the same authenticity that says the F-5 simply cannot have AGM-65s, which is fine except you'll continue to enforce that same requirement when you do not wish to do the work, even if we've purchased a module that advertised that feature on a store page.

Funny you should say that. You actually have people in here commenting on this that worked/work with the platform, pilots, and companies that develop and operate the aircraft. All of these SME's that have commented in these forums over the past 24 hours have exponentially more knowledge on this aircraft than the open-source material ED has. But somehow ED believes they have obtained information career professionals did not have access to on the F-35 to make an accurate representation of the aircraft. Again, the reason for the backlash is to criticize the lack of transparency and honesty that is being presented in the F-35A FAQ's and what has been stated by ED in these forums. Do not present this module to the community as an accurate representation of the F-35A when you know without certainty it is impossible to do that. Present the module as ED's best guess at what this platform can do. The biggest problem I have with this mentality is that is not why I fly DCS. We come to DCS to escape developers pushing out aircraft that are not authentic to their real-life counter parts. ED prides themselves on a high level of authenticity and now they promise a platform they cannot deliver that on. You do not need a forum full of F-35 pilots to explain this. If I wanted to fly an unrealistic representation of a military aircraft, I would go somewhere else and NOT spend $70 on a module they guessed on. This is probably the most I have ever posted on the forums, but the ED really hit a nerve with this one. Honesty, transparency, and integrity is fundamental in maintaining the trust of your customers. All I have seen since this backlash started is beating around the bush about why they went this direction, not acknowledging the truth about what data they actually have to develop the F-35 and where it came from and chastising an F-35 maintainer for calling them out. This is not the direction I want to see ED going because now the door has been opened to make any and everything that is out there. There are times when you open pandoras box in a company and coming back from that bad decision becomes increasingly difficult.

Let's forget essentially all of the onboard systems, especially of the EW kind which you will never be able to model accurately or even remotely accurately, no matter what you try to make us believe...what about sound design? Are you telling us someone will let you near an F35 with a sound recording team? Can you just borrow an F35 from Yanks or one of the allies for a few days to record the engine sounds, onboard warnings etc? Or perhaps you'll be standing outside an airfield and hope that an F35 overflies you and record the sounds that way? The more you put your bizzare decision under some scrutiny, the less sense it makes in the context of the 'fidelity standard' you seemed to have preached about so much all these years. Can't make this, can't make that, but we will somehow make a full fidelity 5th gen aircraft...Sure.

You will not be able to recreate it to the “most realistic study level” sim standard you claim. I’m not saying that as an opinion, but as a fact. You do not have, and will never get, the docs required to make it to that level. What they show in those demos, both air and tech, is no where close to reality. If you believe that you can, I have bridge to sell ya!

To be clear, I'm not a hardcore rivet-counter, and I hope that the F-35 will bring a lot of cash to ED so that the game can be developed in the future. It does however bug me that they have clearly changed their fidelity policy because of the revenue potential of the F-35. Many requested features for existing modules are shot down because there is not enough documentation, or even because the a/c they modelled can carry a particular weapon, but wasn't seen doing it at a particular date. The widely requested red planes, very needed to balance the "teams" to make DCS more of a combat simulator rather than cockpit or 1V1/airquake simulator, were also rejected because they cannot obtain the necessary documentation. But now youtube videos of airshows and pilot comments are sufficient to model an aircraft that is by far the most sophisticated and modern in DCS. I just hope quality, or other EA modules and core features, will not be sacrificed for this. And frankly, I don't really buy the argument that this won't detract from core because it's a different team. Assigning devs to teams is a choice, and it's not like some people can only code planes, but not core features. Prioritizing new EA modules over core features and existing modules screws over players who pay a lot of $$$ based on promises that are frequently delayed or never materialize.

This should have been a FC4 level thing with an "educated guess" of a J-20 and Su-57. I don't believe, that this will be accurate, sorry, not a chance. What would I even use this thing in DCS for? Hunt blind 4th gens and drop jdams on targets defended by 1980s SAMs that have no chance?

That is simply not true. You can be not happy about it, doesn't mean someone else isn't happy.

I agree. As I said, the primary driver of EDs decision-making doesn't appear to be classification or documentation, but rather on if the product has been sold already or not. If you already have our money, then the requirements appear much tighter than if early access hasn't been opened yet.

Man ED, you guys really got me going on this one! You claim to have this out "hopefully" in 2026. The F-6 Hellcat was announced last 2024 and Beyond video and we still have not seen an old WW2 Navy bird, but somehow you will find the resources and material to produce the world leading 5th Gen fighter sometime next year without any official documentation. All these block upgrades everyone is discussing is not like your traditional block upgrade. It's not like the F-16 where since it is an older block, we can produce it. I guarantee you just because it's an older block does not mean it makes it that less classified or easier to obtain data on. Guys, I hate to be the bad guy, I really do. I am beyond an avid supporter of every module you have ever made, and honestly got in trouble on the forums before defending you guys a little to firm. The claims you have made today might as well have included a date selected at my request to sleep with Taylor Swift upon my F-35A preorder. To even model the helmet for the Pilot accurately for the 3D pilot will be a long shot. I might as well try to convince everyone on this forum the war in Gaza just ended when this video came out.

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

синий модуль, синий модуль, снова синий модуль, опять синий модуль, миг-29, синий модуль, синий модуль, синий модуль, синий модуль, синий модуль, ми-г29, синий модуль, синий модуль, синий модуль, танк т-34, синий модуль, синий модуль, синий модуль и ф15с(хотя я его ждал)... мдя.... это уже перебор....

Using the same examples, the SH and the MH-60, the reason is we are still finishing the Charlie, so starting a SH doesn't make sense in that regards. As for the MH-60, our helo teams are simply tied up with current work right now. A FF Su-27 is possible, but the team that would do that most likely would be the one nose deep in a MiG-29 right now.