Leaderboard

Don't You see what the critics mean? We all are sure You will bring the "best possible simulation", no doubt. But "best possible" would be around 35 per cent of the real thing and that's lower the DCS standard considerably. And that is our (the critics) problem: The sacrifice of the standard which makes DCS standing out above other flight sims, for a project which anyone involved in working with the real thing can tell that You cannot get any near of it - that's what our point is. I do like this aircraft very much. Actually, despite all the problems listed in the public it is by far the most sophisticated combat jet in the world - and it looks awesome. (My pic, but "only" made out of an Eurofighter Typhoon): But You won't do this bird justice by creating under the label of DCS a cripple module which is only a shadow of the real thing. Do Yourself a favour, @Wags: Use the manpower working on this one for a project where You can better succeed according to Your standards. Or at least tell the community the truth: That You will deliver them a product which mostly consisted of fantasy and guessing because You need the money it brings. That would be a honest move and could be well accepted.

Like many others, I have my concerns about the F-35 module. Going by the faq it's 85% guesswork and hearsay. We don't need that in DCS. DCS' niche is realism. IMO postpone the F-35, and put the team that would work on it, to work on the other modules that need finishing. Not to mention core stuff, ATC, Vulkan, updating old modules to current graphics, etc. I welcome the 15C because that's feasible. But a half-baked War Thunder F-35? No thanks. Those man hours are much better spent elsewhere if just updating the F-5 took 7000 hours. Do an official poll and ask your community what they rather want. Current modules finished, Core work, asset packs, updated modules, or the F-35. Then put the people at work in that area. My $0.02

I might not have bought it anyway, as it is just not my era, but its still fairly sad to see. It will almost certainly sell like crazy, because many people simply don't care as long as they get theirs. Time will tell if the money is worth the shift in policy, as you promise that this module will (somehow) bring huge sweeping improvements to the sim. It's not the balance or lack of contemporaries for me, but rather, as many others have stated, the effect it will have moving forward. I knew when the Fakeshark 3 came out that we would end up like this eventually. The thought that 3rd parties will now be able to point at the F-35 in order to justify cutting greater corners (and ED has no right to criticize or block them for it now), is saddening. Why go through the painstaking work that 3rd parties are going through when you can just watch youtube and guess now? My issue with it is that it will be the equivalent of a war thunder, MSFS, or modder level module compared to its full fidelity family. Saying it will be the most accurate on the market is insane, because how do you even gauge that when NO ONE knows? Saying your 15%~ accurate module is the most accurate on the market isn't technically lying, but its being disingenuous. Users saying that other modules aren't close either, or that we haven't flown them and wouldn't know either so who cares, is just dumb. It would be similar to if our F-4E had maverick slaving on its pod, aim-120s, and other fictional abilities. I have never flown an F-4E in real life, so by that logic I cannot complain right? Except that we have the declassified resources to prove that it didn't. You can't say the same for the F-35. It will be no better than an MSFS module and now truly opens the gate for "good enough" guesswork modules. You are quite literally admitting that you will be modeling an F-35 brochure. I wish the best for ED. I do. I have been flying since DCS: A-10C (actually Lock-On). I grew up with ED in a sense. I have supported and bought almost every module and terrain for sale, even if I don't enjoy the era (WW2). I am also very interested in the F-15C, and will almost certainly buy that. But how can we be assured that the F-15C will be done to the best it can be done? Will you simply watch a youtube video or watch an air show if you don't feel like reading extensive documentation? Will we see "mass produced" modules that are "good enough" moving forward? I can simply not buy the F-35, and I most likely won't, but changing the mission and path that I have supported is more harming in my opinion than a module I sit out on. I would love to see how you justify holding your third parties to the same standard of detail that you have up until this point.

That's my guess too. I can't believe a few islands with a few buildings takes longer than giving us Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe they're really just waiting for everything to be ready, map, modules, assets. Pure speculation, but maybe the Corsair is waiting to be part of this package too? Anyhow if this is the case I quite disagree, I'd prefer to have the modules as they are ready. We can practice flying the Hellcat on different maps to be ready for the WW2 Marianas when it comes. Or, I'd be happy to explore the WW2 Marianas in a P-47 waiting for the Hellcat to come. I remember the times when all I could do in a P-51 was shooting Doras over Novorossiysk, and DCS still became my favorite WW2 sim then and there.

CubanAce says ED has agreed to let him pitch an official Su-57 AI addon

Once again, it did not crash and burn for any reason but confidence was lost in the person who wanted to do it. There was never even a contract signed with ED as far as I know. It didn't even get rolling. Comparing that to our effort is disingenuous at best. All that said, I see this thread just spinning in circles, you all got your opinions out and now it is time to just wait and see what we do. I am sure there will be plenty of reviews when it first releases and you all can make a more informed decision then. Thanks al for the feedback.

Actually I think for the most part this thread has been fairly civil. If you think this is toxic, you haven't been around long enough Different people play DCS for different reasons. Some play it for the level of realism it provides, while to others that's less important. To those for whom realism matters, this signals a shift away from the reason they play in the first place. This explains the passion, and they (we) have a right to express our concerns. Some may think it's whiny, and others may think those who don't value realism are just fanboys, air quakers, whatever. But in the end we have to remember that we have to respect the reasons others play, even if it doesn't align with our own. Let's not devolve to calling each other whiny (wasn't you) and/or toxic. Respect our right to voice disagreement with the direction the company is taking the game, and we will respect your right to play differently than us.

War Thunder is and always will be an arcade game. It’s Ace Combat on steroids. DCS has never been such and never will be even with an F-35 in it. If ED couldn’t do it, they wouldn’t. It’s that simple. All this pontificating about a module that’s more than likely 2 years away is getting ridiculous, especially when the War Thunder comparison come out. It’s not even close. Also, BMS has a half baked Hornet in it. Does this mean BMS is also War Thunder?

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.

There's really nothing to discuss here. If you don't like the F-35, that's your right, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to get it. I don't understand all the negativity surrounding this module. Remember how much the missiles' characteristics have changed over time? But for some reason I haven't heard so much outrage that they're not realistic. The most important thing here is that they continue to be upgraded and become closer to reality, just like the modules. We'll die of old age before we get a 100% realistic F-35 simulator. But ED can give us a 60-70% realistic one right now. There simply can't be any downsides. For the rest of the world, it may be another unrealistic flying machine, but for some people it may be a dream.

It’s actually me you are quoting, not Oban, so I’ll address. The difference is FC4 are advertised as simplified / low fidelity (and priced accordingly). This one is advertised as high fidelity, a bar it can’t reasonably achieve in comparison to modules with thousands of pages of documentation that describe how they work. Much will have to be interpolated through educated guesses with this new module, something ED has refused to do with other full fidelity modules. I have no doubt it will be fun, detailed and immersive, but it just can’t be accurate. This is why I’ve advocated a third “high fidelity” tier for this one (and those that come after it). Detailed, clickable, but not able to be substantiated to the same level as full fidelity. Those customers who are interested in being as close as possible to the real thing can then, in an informed way, decide whether it works for them or not. It shouldn’t be advertised as the same level of fidelity as A10C, F18, etc, because it simply can’t be. If it is, then I for one have greatly overestimated how accurate the others actually are - and there lies the other concern in people’s minds. If this is truly to be to the same level as A10C, Hornet, et al - then this can only mean those modules are not as true to life as they were thought (and advertised) to be. Now, I’ve said my piece - my voice has been heard (I hope), and I’m going to stop responding to pings and responses as I’m just cluttering up the thread with the same argument again and again. If you buy it, great, it was free (my argument, not the module). If you don’t, carry on as if you were normal (little military humour there, no one take this seriously pls).

It is absolutely ridiculous to complain about the F-14 being made better. Plenty of people have long wished for the HUD and PTID. Yeah, are there other cool things it could have? Absolutely. But to act like it is somehow a bad thing to get more features is just extremely silly. This is _YOUR_ desire: to get this specific A-model. And that's fine! But it is not fair to act like it is somehow a mistake from the company whose only customer you are not.

This comment is another example of misleading the community. You suggest by default with this statement you are making an earlier version of the F-35, not a new LRIP production. This is beyond misleading to your customers. You could tell us you were making an Alpha variant pre-IOC and it would still be just as classified as one rolling off the line today. There is NOTHING Eagle Dynamics has that can they have obtained that is remotely close to providing real details about this aircraft. All material including the video above that is promotional and released by Lockheed Martin is vetted and goes through a rigorous process before release to ensure nothing is being provided to the media that is going to give away trade secrets. Again, build the module, but don't proclaim to be building something off real world data you have obtained about the aircraft. It's not. Plain and simple. Comments like this lead those people who are not around these aircraft or have worked with them to believe somehow ED has obtained rights or privileges to produce parts of the F-35 when you have not. This by definition is false advertising. Something I never thought I would see ED step down to.

Нас никто. Но, во-первых, стандарт модулей занижается, хотя политика всегда была с упором на документацию; во-вторых, люди займутся хренью, вместо того, чтоб работать над нужными в игре модулями. Ну ок, фанбои сделают кассу. Посмотрим.

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,

Thanks for the light grey fighter Eagle! I've seen in FAQ the F-15C will be mid-2000s MSIP II covering 2005+ timeframe. Please make also late Cold War/Desert Storm original 1985-2004 MISP II - either as separate variant or at least as selectable tick in editor - removing Link-16, JHMCS, GPS-nav, AIM-9X, few APG-63v(1) functions. To fit Iraq map Desert Storm and Fulda Gap divided Germany map as we already have all the proper era enviromet, and AI air/ground/sea assets from late Cold War. And both sides, NATO and Soviets/WarPac flayable modules. And as it was the most important part of F-15C career. To be a counterpart for 1980s MiG-29 9.12 Fulcrum and all other late Cold War DCS modules like Tornado IDS, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Su-17M, MiG-21bis, Mirage F.1, F-14 Tomcat, Mi-24 Hind, Gazelle L, Viggen, Bo-105, Kfir, L-39, FC3 Su-27S, A-10A, Su-25A etc. Already in 1985 F-15C MSIP II received Programmable Armament Control Set (PACS), Multi-Purpose Color Display (MPCD), AN-ALR-56C RWR, AN/ALE-45 Chaff/Flare Dispenser, TWS radar mode, Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR), AIM-120 integration and wiring, new F-15 Advanced Control Stick Grip (ACSG) etc., cockpit already looks the same as mid-2000s, so adding this variant would be relatively easy, just removing few newer things. And it would significantly improve the value of the whole module, adding 2 decades (!) of real life scenarios and F-15C service to play with, from 1985 late Cold War, through 1991 Gulf War, 1994 Balkan War, 1999 Allied Force up to early 2000s. cheers!

Deka, You're our only hope for this Save us from this EF & F35... My JF can only do so much! MKK or J10 when

Given how many "CAN WE GET THE F-35!!?" requests have been made, they already know the players' opinion.

Exactly! If you guys want more Redfor, make sure the MiG-29 sells like hot cakes in the anticipated pre-order, so they can go ahead with the Su-27 straight away. Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

I rarely wrote on the forum before, but now I am incredibly excited about the F-35 announcement. However, the abundance of criticism has slightly overshadowed my impressions. And this is despite the fact that mods for 5th generation aircraft have been around for a long time, which shows the obvious interest of the community. Therefore, despite everything, I would like to thank the ED team for such a truly important step in the development of DCS. I am sure that this will only push the development of the entire project. To those people who are still dissatisfied, I would like to say: just think about it, even if this module will be perhaps a little less realistic than others, given the experience of the developers, we will still get the best F-35 simulator ever created, for years to come. And over time, it will only become better and closer to reality. Is this not enough for you? Many of us did not even hope to ever touch the 5th generation with our own hands, at the level that DCS can offer. I am a little offended that many people do not seem very grateful for this. So once again, thank you ED, and I can only wish you success on this difficult path!

I didn't move it, not that I disagree with the move either. 110% yes, all they need to do is put together a proposal with their work and send it off to the team for review, Wags is a good place to start, or even me as I can direct someone in the right direction as well. In reference to Ru fighters, we have said that a 3rd Party team outside of the ED offices and in another country could get away with more. The Zero is actually a good example, even the P-47 to a certain degree. The Zero and a lot of documentation for it was destroyed post-war as many know the Japanese really pushed them away from the directions that took them to war. A lot of documentation was lost. Flying Zeros or other Japanese aircraft are hard to come by, especially with their original power plants. We have to fill the holes with other methods, such as CFD Studies, captured aircraft studies, etc. In a weird sort of way its similar to the F-35 except for different reasons. If that makes sense. The P-47 was somewhat similar in that when the original manufacturer was bought, much of their records were destroyed, or thought to be destroyed. Once again we looked towards CFD studies, and well our boss has flown a P-47 so that is helpful. We did end up finding documentation in the end, but again it shows that an aircraft could be done if you can fill the holes in other ways. Now I know what everyone is thinking... you cannot fill the holes on the F-35. You would be right on some things for sure. But this is also true on anything we modelled, even the A-10C defensive systems are not near what they are capable of, same with others. We do not want them to be either, not because we are lazy or dumb but because we are not out to make a simulation for adversaries to train against, especially important for the F-35. So we use other methods where we find holes in our research, other holes will remain open for good reason and you will have an F-35 that belongs in an air combat game. Nothing in DCS will make you a real-life fighter pilot. BUT DCS will get you closer than anyone can. So why I believe and can safely say ED is not doing less with the F-35 because it will be the best F-35 available in any Simulation Game on the market for regular people to buy and fly. That is all we have ever tried to do, from the Ka-50 to the AH-64D. SMEs here and there, including those that work with us will happily tell you what they flew in real life is not 100% what we have done, but what we have done is as close as you can get without joining the military. I have spent well over 24 hours now on the subject, but the bottom line is this. We will make it, we know what our customers expect, and we will give you the best you can find. It will improve the DCS environment, it will push us forward and expand our horizons. When the F-35 comes out some will want it, some will not. Like any module we have produced, it will be our best effort, I promise that. Thanks!

I agree. The first time it was announced, it crashed and burned because the community figured theres no way in hell they can make it accurately, and 13 some odd years later my feelings are pretty much the same. That was a huge mess then...still considered to be a huge mess now, and quite frankly it looks like everyones opinions havent changed either.

Weapons are no problem, they can be disabled by mission. Systems are the problem, and this is a general DCS issue. If all modules had the ability to hard disable datalink, helmet sight, and GPS per-mission (and countermeasures for all the 70s aircraft in game with 80s-90s chaff/flare dispensers, and 90s TERNAV on the AJS37, etc. etc.), then it would be much less of a pain point for the community to be stuck with one specific example of each aircraft. I understand that for a study sim game, making many similar versions of one airframe is economically unattractive to developers. However some small effort to mitigate this by disabling systems would go 90% of the way to enable an order of magnitude more immersive historical missions.

Telling red enjoyers that lack of information is why you can't give them a su30, j10 or any of the sort is completely out the window... But will still never happen. F35 when?

The announcement of the F-35 certainly crossed a line. As far as I'm concerned, there will be a before and an after to the announcement of the development of this highly classified aircraft, which will undoubtedly be a very random module in terms of flight behaviour, avionics and weapons. In short, we're a long way from the hardcore simulation of DCS. - We can't have Stinger on the Apache, but we will have an F-35. - We can't have UPK-32 on the Hind, but we will have an F-35. And those are just two examples. What do I expect from DCS in 2025? NOTHING! We'll probably get a Central Europe map, and depending on how this map will be presented, that'll probably be my only payment of the year.... And if we end up with the same kind of announcement as for the AFG map, with the risk of totally unacceptable changes to the timetable, I'll pass on that too. Proposing a MIG-29 and an F-15C was totally sufficient for me. This F-35 thing is totally crazy compared to what ED has always advocated in its simulation management. When you read the criticisms on a lot of forums, I don't seem to be the only one to draw this conclusion. Nor to see clearly that the most important thing now seems to be to replenish ED's money coffers by continuing to offer us unfinished products. As someone who flies exclusively on helicopters, I've got everything I need. Thank you for all your hard work and good luck for the future....but for my part, I've lost my faith after more than 17 years on Lock On, FC and DCS.

Please look at upgrading the Warbirds please ED..a very big part of this great Sim.

As a French guy, I can only talk about Rafale. Dassault (aka Rafale's manufacturer) have a very strong policy about their intellectual property. They are very touchy about it, to the point that they will take down any mod that uses the actual name of their aircraft. They have a well known history of taking down Rafale mods in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Same reason why Razbam used "M-2000C" and not "Mirage 2000C" for their DCS module. The other problem would be the required military confidentiality level for lots of Rafale's systems. To sum it up, if you don't pay some humongous amount of money to Dassault, you have zero chance to release a full fidelity module, and it would be a Rafale F1 / block 1 standard at best (pretty close to an airframe without systems).

@YoYo I think you don't understand why people complaining (at least hardcore players). There is no doubt that ED would be able to reproduce main avionic and different display menu, ramp start and most general things. But a module isn't just only good cockpit or nice ramp start, especially in combat flight simulator like DCS. We are talking about the operational capabilities of the F35. this is probably one of the most sensitive aircraft in the world. So ED is trying to make us accept the fact that they are allowed to develop a public simulator from data of the aircraft that intelligence services from countries like Russia or China try to catch for one decade. Even if there is a contract between ED and the USAF like they did with the A 10C, it's not comparable technology. So, things like radar performance in A/A or A/G will show nothing close to the real aircraft. flight performances would be the same approximation. Take the F16 for example, it is one of the most well documented aircraft publicly speaking and even with that kind of data, how long it takes to approach a good result considering the FM. Announced the fact that you've got feedback from pilots doesn't prove anything about you've got the good or accurate informations. Active or former pilots are still under law pursuit if they are disclosing classified informations like any military guys. Last thing i want to develop is EW. F35 are intended to operate in contested area using there own EW suite without the needs of other assets. No needs to deepen the sensitivity of that kind of system. To be honest we can't even speak of EW realism in DCS the way it's modeled. Now from a gamer POV, it's an attractive plane and for sure it will be easy to sell and most of the community doesn't care of realism. To conclude, the most hardcore players must understand that DCS is a public simulator and not a professional one. So you will never have a full spectrum realism module for 80$. Even the pro simulator are not what you thing. ED must be more crystal clear about what they sell in term of realism. The most advanced the aircraft is, the farthest you are from the real aircraft capacities and you can applied that on everything like ground or airborne radar, missiles, stand of munitions...

Когда то давно, я предложил сделать DCS Як-52 . На до мной все дружно посмеялись, покрутили пальцем у виска , в том числе и сами разработчики. так что все может быть и вероятность увидеть DCS Су-25 не нулевая. И кстати с точки зрения геймплея - офигенный самолет. Не требующий особых премудростей. Ему везде найдется работа, и в онлайнах и в оффлайнах.

Не угадали. А в США секретный самолёт несекретный, потому что AMERICA, F**K YEAH! (и далее по тексту)? И поэтому люди, имеющие к самолёту отношение, напихали NineLine полную панамку на английском форуме? А ещё криминальная история с F-16, ED и США была, если помните.

As I wrote in another thread, DCS is not a zero-sum game. Your FF modules will not suddenly get dumbed down with the release of the F-35. I bet those who don't want to encounter the F-35 in MP will find more than enough servers that won't allow 5th gen. Whether or not ED has "enough documentation" to go ahead is strictly ED's problem. It's their decision to move ahead with development, and it is the customer's decision to purchase the product, or not. I bet there will be ample reviews once it's released, and I assume at some point it will receive the "try before you buy" option as well. Bottom line, I highly doubt that ED's choice to make this module will have a significant negative impact on current gameplay, or DCS as a whole. If you don't like it: avoid and don't buy.

М-да... DCS, лучший симулятор с точки зрения работы с арматурой кабины, но к сожалению даже не всех модулей. Да и просто нет аналогов в рамках реализации реактивной авиации, особенно современной. В остальном, он настолько условный, что его реализм определяется степенью невежества, в данном виде деятельности, человека играющего в него. И, чем выше невежество, тем выше реализм. Но для человека знакомого с данными вопросами, особенно профессионально, которые реализуются в модулях, возникает множество претензий к симуляции процессов. Но количество их различается от модуля к модулю. И опять же, это во многом связано со степенью знания данного модуля. Ну, да... Есть ещё "истинно верующие ". Для них DCS - это священный Грааль. Если у кого-то есть возражения, касаемо реализма и реализации, он подлежит анафеме и сожжению на костре их собстве6ого верования (метафорическое изложение). Поэтому, из 3 перечисленных пунктов, он в полной мере не отвечает ни по одному. И опять-таки, это зависит от модуля. Некоторые модули, на 1 пункт вообще не дают ответа, а на 2 и 3 в общей массе и, честно говоря, оставляет желать лучшего (мягко говоря) по сравнению с другими платформами. Или дают качественную, но искаженную (не имеющую ничего общего с настоящим объектом) картину. К радости, есть модули, от которых ты получаешь удовольствие эксплуатируя их, хотя понимаешь, что здесь должно быть немного не так, но это не играет особого значения.

I'll just re-iterate what I think is my main point, since it may have gotten buried in the personal back and forth. There's a pretty simple solution to the question of "cheapening" the full fidelity brand. Give this (and others like it) a new tier, new branding. Call it "high fidelity." So you'd have FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Each with their own standards of documentation, etc. FC4 - As it currently is, simplified systems, non-clickable cockpits. High fidelity - Clickable cockpits, deep systems simulation, but understanding many reasonable assumptions / educated guesses were made to fill in gaps in documentation. May not represent the full and true capabilities of the modelled aircraft. Full fidelity - As it currently is. High bar for available documentation, top tier standard of realism. Opening up this new "high fidelity" brand would open the door to a whole new ecosystem of possibilities that we haven't had access to before. It could be very good for DCS, bring in new players, new revenue streams.

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?

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

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.

This post originally bothered a lot of blue fan-boys . so I deleted everything.. let be stay like it is .

The other topic is closed, but I would like to draw attention to a rather important thing that appeared in another thread. Contrary to appearances, the F-35 avionics are not at all complicated to recreate. The F-35A avionics are based on known solutions from 4th generation plus jets, transferred to the new machine. It differs in parameters, of course (some) and the very end of the playback and processing for the pilot, but this is not a revolution, but an evolution, which is based on a large logic from 4+ generations. In 2015 (wow, that's ten years ago, but I can say that now). I had the pleasure of testing Lockheed's F-35 simulator before a commercial contract was signed. I spent over an hour there, not only getting to know the avionics but also having a few dogfights, and although the experience of the whole thing was almost Matrix-like (especially 10 years ago), there was nothing surprising. Everything is reproducible, and a good example is India Foxt Echo model do MSFS, and before P3D. Of course, everything that is most interesting and important is under the hood and these are secret things, but who said that ED does not have some kind of contract, like it was with the A-10C back in the day, but of course he can't talk about it too loudly (although of course the situation in the world is different now than it was with the simulator for military purposes like it was for the Warthog)? Another issue is that the work on the F-35 announced today does not mean that we will get the module right away, it will probably be the end of 2026 or even later. The obvious fact is that more documents and data will come to light during this time, and it will also be later. Anyone who has been associated with DCS for a longer time knows that sometimes modules received 3 FMs during this time and several avionics upgrades (a perfect example is e.g. M2000, whose avionics changed to a very large extent after receiving new materials). This means that there is nothing to worry about today, simply. I'm rather an optimist because the direction here is quite simple than some assume. Fingers crossed and I hope we will recive more opponents for the other side (Gen 4 and 4+), especially as AI, so that even more equal conflicts can be created. Regards!

I support it, but conditioned to a Naval version behind.

I think they should make it easier for mods to make some mid-fidelity WWII planes to fill all the vast gaping holes without having to wait decades for ED. No radars or other electronic systems. They don't have to exhaustively model every nut and bolt and hydraulic hose in the wheel well. That isn't really necessary to me. Good readable cockpit (doesn't need to be clicky), Good flight model. That's all I need. But yeah, I was disappointed at how little I saw in the 2025 vid for WWII. They showed even less than 2024. We are going backwards. They can't make a Zero because they don't have every last government stamped design document personally signed by Yamamoto, but they can go make an F-35 based on rumors they heard around the bar at the O'Club? SMDH.

Btw, this was posted from Wags little before the 2025 and beyond video was released. I'm all in for multiple ac versions.

Я не раз наблюдал интересные сценки здесь. Когда Yo-yo разбивал в пух и прах напыщенные раздувания щек, указывая на элементарное незнание базовых вещей. Все эта критика то же ведь под большим вопросом! Т.е. собственно тут вполне можно задать законный вопрос, а сам-то ты кто? Конечно трудовую книжку предъявлять не стоит. Но категоричные утверждения "профессионалов", невольно вызывают недоверие.

Of course, but we are also not going to over commit right now, and will follow up on these subjects as development proceeds. Usually, we just tease and then allow discussion, the FAQs is new and we know things will change don't want to pin our selves in any places we cannot get out of.

Day one purchase for me. The F-35 is one of my favourite aircraft of all time.

Guys, I am trying to keep this open for discussion, but if it's just gonna turn into a fight, I will close it. Please be nice to each other. And if you do not want the F-35 or think we can't do it, then you just need to wait to see as the product develops. Thanks.

I am not entitled but it is sick that nVidia is using fake frames and making look like a performance gain when it is not.. hey that is fine if they are at a wall they could jusrt easily say we are at that point were we are getting diminishing returns instead of the hyperbole they are pushing.. Sorry you feel it is a gain. I guess then I can give nVidia fake money every 2 dollars and pay them with fake money so for every real dollar I give them it will be two fake bills.. hey I like that idea..

Who did so though? Disagreement doesn't equate to disloyalty. The vast majority of those disagreeing on this thread have done so respectfully. In fact, I think more disrespect and toxicity was just thrown by the "agreeing" side in the last page than has been thrown by the "disagreeing" side.

The reason why is that they base their modules on real documentation. Do you see the problem with the F35 now? They have not, and will never acquire said information. It will be a clickable FC4 level aircraft at best. This is great, but let us know ahead of time please, and not two years into the future in a hidden youtube comment by Wags.

Yeah. But be sure that we are heading for a release in 2025