Leaderboard

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

Очень ждал BEYOND, и разочаровался и вот почему: 1. да с одной стороны все как всегда красиво и здорово, да прикольно что будет современный самолет f35, но это перечеркивает то что раньше говорили про реализм и засекреченные данные. Если можно делать со слов пилотов, то тогда также можно делать более современные красные самолеты со слов пилотов , не подходя слишком близко к той самой секретности и держаться ближе к балансу между красными и синими (так как СИМУЛЯТОР прежде всего Игра, а не тренажер). И плюс к тому синие современные самолеты не сталкиваются, сталкивались в реальных боях с современными красными и поэтому их возможности скорее всего приукрашены и идеализированы. Руководствоваться можно тем, что общедоступно и тем, что говорят те самые реальные пилоты, взяв за основу те характеристики самолетов в описании которых они сходятся, возможно легкой корректировкой. 2. Отсутствие красных новинок (миг 29а только, я его конечно же куплю на старте продаж). Теперь я уже не верю и это конечно же мое личное мнение, про то что красные не делаются из за фин. выгоды, хотя бы потому что примеров современных красных самолетов с прицельными контейнерами, мфд и т.д. просто нет. И говорить что они плохо продаются не имея реальных примеров подтверждения этому как минимум странно. Не думаю, что у ка50 плохие продажи на западном рынке, ведь он имеет интересный и более современный геймплей. И мне как игроку и давнему любителю lock on и dcs, уже просто приелись эти синие самолетики, все кроме f35 пожалуй, его я конечно же куплю. В них все меньше различий, относительно скажем различия между A10c и f18. Тут я конечно же понимаю что, введение новых систем тратит слишком много ресурсов. 3. Игра совершенно забыла свои корни, становясь все более синей и все больше теряя атмосферу, того самого LOCK ON с реалистичными переговорами при загрузках и в меню, с кучей классный красных самолетов, которых было точно не меньше синих. Чего стоят сбитые только красные самолеты как тир для синих, в последнем трейлере. А хотелось бы, чтоб разработчик видел мир серым, таким как он и есть , смотрел на мир боевых самолетов со стороны в общем, а не с позиции синей стороны. Если мы выпускаем синий современный самолет, то должны задуматься о введении и его красного предполагаемого противника того же класса, а не f35 против Миг29а. Для того чтобы в это интересно было играть, так как повторюсь это все же игра, да симулятор с максимальной возможной степенью реалистичности, но игра, а игра должна развлекать прежде всего, чтоб хорошо продаваться. 4. Никаких новостей про технологии (Vulkan к примеру не упоминали) 5. С картостроением тоже не понятно, теперь я уже совершенно не жду шарик, а также новых карт, понимая какое будет качество, на примере Афганистана, или того же мфс24, где подлетишь чуть ближе к земле или подальше от популярных мест и плакать хочется. Там два варианта плоские текстуры, фото подложка или баги деформации и треугольность ландшафта. Опять таки понимаю, что технологически ручная работа жрет слишком много ресурсов, которых всегда не хватает. Эталоном для меня все так же остается Сирия. И именно такой проработки и хотелось бы в дальнейшем. Чтоб развитие карт было вглубь а не ширь. С большим уважением к разработчикам этого уникального продукта от красной стороны

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.

Thx. For non FB owners: "NOTE ON DCS:F-35 - WE ARE NOT INVOLVED! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After the surprise announcement of the DCS:F-35 we have received several messages asking if we were involved in the development. The answer is NO: WE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, although years ago we had, of course, discussed to port our MSFS F-35 to DCS. Frankly, to make this a realistic F-35 simulation, it is totally understandable that ED decided to develop this on their own as "first party" official module, as there are a number of changes/improvements to the simulation core needed to make it work. However, we have seen a lot of misinformed discussion about the potential "realism" that ED can achieve, as they declared it to be a "full fidelity" module and we'd like to clarify that we believe they can do an EXCELLENT job in terms of realism: contrary to popular belief, much of the required information on the F-35 air vehicle is publicly available (e.g. academic papers) and there are dozens of videos of cockpit simulators, showing the avionics and the pilot interface in great detail. Moreover, a lot of the official aircraft documentation is UNCLASSIFIED (although it is RESTRICTED). Long story short, the F-35 is actually better documented than most people think - and it IS better documented than the F-22, and even (to a much lesser extent) than the Eurofighter. There are, however, some critical areas in the development, such as the actual performance of the radar and the sensors (that is CLASSIFIED) and the actual radar cross section (which can be, to some extent, simulated with commercially available tools such as HF-SS or CST). So, yes, there will be areas in which ED will have to guesstimate some things - so il will not be (OBVIOUSLY) 100% REAL. But (spoiler) NO SIMULATION IS 100% REAL. Can it break the game balance? Definitely YES. But that is what the F-35 can do in real life too."

I can fly the A-10C ll or F/A-18C when I want to be serious. Just like I do now. For some more modern fun i'll buy the F-35. I just fly SP, so who cares what I do anyway? I'm just an old man (82) trying to have a good time. edit...Thanks for the Likes guys.

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.

Folks please if you are going to give feedback keep it respectful, insults and jibes at the work we do and the team dont help. We know what our community wants, we work very hard at getting feedback from many of you. DCS is going to continue to grow and we will continue to develop, you may not understand our long term goals at the moment but I think if you are patient enough you will. The F-35A and the F-15C are very popular choices, if they are not for you that is fine, but before you pass judgement why not try it when it is ready. We still have a long way to go in development so I hope you will enjoy the journey with us. Have fun with your flights in DCS, remember DCS is for entertainment purposes and I hope you will enjoy DCS for many years to come. thank you

Hello, I Flight simulators from Solo Flight on PC , F-18 Amiga - MSFS95. I loved the SSI-Eagle dimamics SU-27 simulator, because you flew a RUSSIAN SU-27. The only one who made a SU-27 sim. What happened along the way that they never did it properly, at least with the data that was known to date. It is a plane from the year 1970. I am not asking for a SU-35. Any news about working on very old 2003 the external models? Some models are from LOMAC 2.5. For my part, there are too many planes and helicopters of the blue force and there is not the same counterpart of the red forces in full fidelity. More aircraft from the red forces are missing. On the other hand, some boats are also LOMAC 2.5 from 2003. 22 years without updating them!!It is my wish that all boats with current models be updated. Planes also have very old models. For example, you fly an F-14, you intercept a Tu-95 and it seems like something from another game. But then you zoom in on a house on the Marianas Map and a bicycle has more details than a plane or boat in 3D. so that! I would love for this to be the counterpart of the blue force plane-helicopter house, with the data that is available. At least it's something and not just nothing. WHY F-35?? ---Now to balance the su-57 would be missing F16-Mig-29 in progres ok F-15 -Su-27 when??? is very important this plane for balance the forces. F-15E - Su-30/35 When? same. F18-Su-33 FF Clickcleable cockpit FF - When? Apache - Mi28-Havoc - When? Uss Carrier - Kuznetsov all same level of detail an function of american carriers Moskova Helicopter carrier in 3d! Regards.

We are looking forward to it as well. It's been a module I've been wanting to add to DCS for many years. Best wishes, Matt

Indiafoxtecho just released an (interesting) official statement for the DCS F-35 modul: NOTE ON DCS:F-35 - WE ARE NOT INVOLVED! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After the surprise announcement of the DCS:F-35 we have received several messages asking if we were involved in the development. The answer is NO: WE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, although years ago we had, of course, discussed to port our MSFS F-35 to DCS. Frankly, to make this a realistic F-35 simulation, it is totally understandable that ED decided to develop this on their own as "first party" official module, as there are a number of changes/improvements to the simulation core needed to make it work. However, we have seen a lot of misinformed discussion about the potential "realism" that ED can achieve, as they declared it to be a "full fidelity" module and we'd like to clarify that we believe they can do an EXCELLENT job in terms of realism: contrary to popular belief, much of the required information on the F-35 air vehicle is publicly available (e.g. academic papers) and there are dozens of videos of cockpit simulators, showing the avionics and the pilot interface in great detail. Moreover, a lot of the official aircraft documentation is APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE or UNCLASSIFIED (although some of the unclassfied documents, like pages of the flight manual, are actually parts of RESTRICTED documents) and can be easily found online. Long story short, the F-35 is actually better documented than most people think - and it IS better documented than the F-22, and even (to a much lesser extent) than the Eurofighter. There are, however, some critical areas in the development, such as the actual performance of the radar and the sensors (that is CLASSIFIED) and the actual radar cross section (which can be, to some extent, simulated with commercially available tools such as HF-SS or CST). So, yes, there will be areas in which ED will have to guesstimate some things - so il will not be (OBVIOUSLY) 100% REAL. But (spoiler) NO SIMULATION IS 100% REAL. Can it break the game balance? Definitely YES. But that is what the F-35 can do in real life too.

1500 Strong on Discord & YouTube each! + Meet the Current Veco Simulations Team! We’ve just hit 1500 Discord members and 1500 YouTube subscribers at nearly the same time! This is a huge milestone for us, and it’s all thanks to you. Your support, feedback, and passion mean the world to us. Whether you’re here to chat, share ideas, follow the progress of our project, or *even ask when the Talon will be released*, every interaction fuels our drive to aim higher and push forward. We believe that transparency is key to building trust and collaboration with our community. To celebrate this milestone, we’d like to introduce you to the talented individuals behind the scenes who are working hard voluntarily to bring the T-38A Talon to life: Copprhead (Lead Developer): Graduate Computer Scientist with 17+ years of experience as a software engineer, several years as team lead and project lead of international multi-year-long software development projects. Vector (Lead Artist): VFX Artist / Finishing Artist with 7+ years of experience in commercial/film post-production and workflow optimization. Baydu (Developer): Senior Software Engineer with 11+ years of experience, a master’s degree in aerospace engineering and extensive experience in computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Cuper (Developer): Software Developer who previously worked for a 3rd-party development team with a focus on turbojet simulations, and various EFM mods. Roughmaster (2D Artist): 2nd Assistant Camera and Director of Photography, as well as a highly acclaimed DCS World livery maker. Breadmaker (3D Artist): Briefing Officer (aviation), Freelance 3D/2D artist, creator of the DCS SK60 mod, and the founder of BAAS Dynamics. We’d also like to give a special shout-out to our amazing livery artists, whose creativity and attention to detail help us bring the T-38 Talon to DCS. Special thanks also goes to Kujo, Panic, Unc0nn3ct3d, Tango, and Kunefe and the Virtual Turkish Stars team for their various contributions! And, of course, our SME team, with tens of thousands of combined real flight hours and deep T-38 experience, who continue to provide invaluable insights. Thank you for your support! https://discord.gg/ZFK7mVKa5t https://www.youtube.com/@VecoSimulations

The ALR-45 equipped early -A is in active finalization progress based on our RWR work in the F-4E, and I hope it will drop in Q1.

MiG-23MF Community mod Features High detailed exterior textures Custom radar External Flight Model New weapons Fully implemented SPO-10 Custom HUD Custom effects Frequently Asked Questions Q: When will the MiG-23MF be released? A: As soon as the first normal build is done Q: How much will it cost? A: Free Q: Is there any way to help? A: Yes, you can. Our team is looking for pole with knowledge of english or russian All team members have acces to last version Discord: https://discord.gg/fvkt7yZrMt

Alpha nerds gonna alpha nerd. Woe to any module that threatens to diminish the coveted image of "hardcore simmer" in the world of flight simulation computer games.

I'll paste this here from our Discord A short overview of the avionics so far. The UFCP is complete, and mfd is well on the way. We'll post another overview in a month or so As always discord is the best way to keep up with progress, link to this can be found on the first post of this thread See you soon, Hayds

Indiafoxtecho just released an (interesting) official statement on Facebook for the DCS F-35 modul as they are not involved in this modul:

My worry is that the F-35 simply worsens the issue that this game already has. Too much focus on individually cool things, but too little concern with what makes a good, coherent game.

You can clearly see we are working, our change logs show that work, but some things do take longer. We have to work with the resources we have. I hope you still enjoy DCS, even with the tings you might find an issue, I know thousands of people are enjoying the work we are doing already. We will continue to fix issues, continue to bring out new content and continue to grow as a company, the F-35A is part of that growth and I hope in the years to come the long term plans will become obvious to you all. best regards bignewy

Hello everyone, Quick update as Step 2 is complete on my side, all panels, VDI... OK, all but clock, bingo and G-meter. That will wait. I am happy to share and attach my designs. They are functional, with basically the bare minimum to my liking, and certainly far from being as accurate nor beautiful as other ones (such as @AusMumbles's, etc...). But I figured that as a quick and low cost approach, this will do the job. So maybe other people would be interested. I also attach some support for the Arduino Mega and my wheel version (very easy to install with a rotary encoder from Amazon). Quick advice. I had to re-adjust the joystick position, it was a bit too high and forward. The stick still touches the HSD when going extreme top left. But without the same stick as irl, it is a pain to adjust angles and height. So if you have exact location measures and methodology to adjust, I'll take it. Step 3 will be wiring and Arduino coding. I'm not found of that part - 100+ switches :-). Step 4 will be replacing the throttle with the real one, and also the rudder. When I compare with the game by removing my VR headset, I can say center frame is basically in position. But sides panels are a bit moved to the rear, maybe 1 inch (2.5 cm). Having panels cut by CNC should provide better accuracy. Or maybe it's because of VR and there is "some distorsion". Overall, it's really really good enough when playing. Cheers ! JAR Arduino Mega support.STL Wheel - v2.STL Center.zip Left.zip Right.zip

Be it 30%..40%...60%...realistic I honestly don't really care. I wouldn't know it anyway if it's 100% realistic. Make it believable than it would be enough for me. Bring it on ED and good luck.

What an absurd question. The insane levels of narcissism occurring on these forums is astonishing. The decision to make a module is not conditional on YOUR individual opinion. If you do not like or want the Jet for any reason - faith in ED's ability to get it up to a playable standard in relation to the real thing or you just don't like fat amy, do not buy it. It has zero impact on you. Absolutely none. The vitriol that comes out of some in this community when anything happens that isn't exactly what they want has to stop.

I believe that is a supremely silly question. ED know that there is immense buyer potential in an F-35 module. People want iconic planes, and things that go boom. And they want to dominate. What better module to sell them than Fat Amy? Whatever existing players/customers think is completely irrelevant to ED - they live and die on a one-off sales structure. Past sales are yesterday, let's focus on the tomorrow! It makes a lot of financial sense to sell this module even if it makes the majority of the existing user base blue in the face. And it's also easy to predict what module is likely to be next: the Raptor or F-117. DCS is a game, and this new module will hopefully finally shut up those annoying rivet-counting pretentious Holier-Than-Thoughs that look down their winkled nose, proclaiming that "DCS is a simulator, not a game". It always was a game, and the F-35 to them is what the "Final Experiment" is to flat earthers: the end of their little make-belief world. Welcome to the real world. And you know what? If it's fun, it's good. DCS is a game. So, am I happy about the F-35? Not really. But more importantly: who gives a damn what I think? It makes financial sense to ED; check mate.

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!

A real F-35 pilot will say nothing. He can't. Not unless he wants to go to prison. I'm not from the US, but I'm sure everyone with access to classified F-35 data has signed an NDA. In addition, it would not only be treasonous by law to talk about the F-35's performance, but on a moral level as well, because even if you left the service yourself, why would you divulge information about system capabilities of in-service aircraft that could potentially kill your former wingman? I worked for years on the EW system on the JAS 39 Gripen. I can tell you that the EW/radar modeling in DCS is very simplistic. I could come up with a big list with what is OK and what is NOK in DCS regarding ECM etc. I'm not a pilot but an engineer by profession, but just like any F-35 pilot worth his salt I keep my trap shut. Do you really think anyone who has flown an F-35 will sit down with DCS developers and say, "Yeah, well you know in the F-35, contacts don't show up at X km on the RWR, we can see them at Y Km. And on the display, we can see the name of the Su-35 pilot's girlfriend and what he had for breakfast". No, DCS should stick to modeling aircraft that are no longer in service. Makes it easier for everyone involved.

I don't think the US military using US jets to stand in for Soviet jets in training exercises was entertainment. Realism isn't binary yes/no. Sure you can argue that the DCS F-35 is going to be missing things, but that doesn't mean it's completely removed from reality. I can't tell you what the DCS F-35 will ultimately be, but if you understand physics and engineering you can do more than make a random guess at how to simulate it.

Некликабы 25, 27 и 29 в смысле? Их делали как и Ка-50, в другую эпоху. Ты здесь одновременно ищешь логику в российском законотворчестве и называешь ЕДшников боящимися собственной тени. Это факт, Ка-50_3 АБРИС имеет фуфловые иконки. Это факт, что Ка-50_3 не получил комплекс Витебск даже в упрощенном виде аналога на ГС Су-25Т. ЕД к этому решению пришли имея основания которые даже патриотам славнофилам прекрасно понятны. "Мы знаем где мы живем" Все по анекдоту Американец: У нас любой может выйти и сказать "я не согласен с президентом Америки". СССР: Так и нас тоже любой может выйти и сказать "я не согласен с президентом Америки". Открытые источники Ф-35 можно сколько угодно изучать сидя в и Вашингтоне и в Москве. А собирать открытые источники по Су-30 в Москве... У них 3 устоя: достоверность, прибыльность и законность. В конкретных случаях больше упор на одно чем на другое. Ф-35 - прибыльность. Оставшиеся "синие" модули с достоверностью сильно менее прибыльны. Оставшиеся "красные" - сильно менее законны. И да, я тоже больше всего бы хотел Су-30/35/57. И надеюсь, ЕД сможет эту 3ю проблему решить - переездом или как угодно еще.

It's because they got one hell of a storm for the Phantom being delayed... They made it very clear what their plan was, the plan didn't work out due to some UI issues, and then it got released several months later and people were utterly p***ed. Some of them took a week off and flamed HB for destroying their holidays. It's just the consequence of those actions.

No it’s due to RAZBAM’s decision to model an early iteration first and then slowly incorporate more functionality and more modern systems (digital UFC, newer TPOD etc) as they progress through early access. And it was that process that was indeed interrupted. But I applaud the approach they took and I wish ED would follow suit: start with an early ‘90s version first and then add in the shiny toys while allowing people the choice which era they wish to represent through Special Options. Yes, exactly. In the end that’s what a lot of people here care deeply about: proper context outweighs having the latest toys.

If you dont like it no problem, I hope you will however try it when ready and then pass a judgment. thank you Yes we do know what many people want, and as you can see we have the F-35A in development, I am sure in the future we will meet the other wants of people as we continue to grow DCS. thank you

You sound pretty new if you think the aircraft we have are mostly guesswork and that would be ok for a f35. No offense but that’s just not how it is. I fly for a living. I spent 22 years in the military and between the two I know and have shared dcs with mil pilots that fly the Apache, F16, F18, F5, Harrier, A10 and some others. I even flew with a prior Iraqi mig 21 pilot. Every single one of them confirmed how accurate they are from the normal systems, weapons systems, subpages within the aircraft mfd software, etc. I also fly with current and former mil pilots in my DCS squadron on a weekly basis, same thing. Even someone who doesn’t fly and/or have access to people like that can look at plenty of mil pilots flying and talking about DCS aircraft on YouTube. I’m at a loss for words that you'd even insinuate that anything we currently have is based mostly on guess work.

If I had, would I be posting here? @Gunfreak I really hope that's not the case. Just because Il-2 is/was a competition for DCS WW2 it doesn't mean it could ever replace DCS for me. I'm sure the same will be true for CP. I just love the study level environment of DCS so much that I want to experience the PTO here. I don't care if another title has more content. Once you get hooked onto the complexity and realism of DCS it's very hard to take a few steps back. So I truly hope it's going to happen, I have big plans for the PTO campaign-wise.

Wags stated in the QA video that it will be a cold war map set in the 80s, which is when the Classix video is from, so I sure hope we get a load of highway runways. Ideally, we can turn them on and off in the mission editor. I am totally happy with them just being permanently prepared for use however. What I am really hoping for is that we get some core game assets that lets us actually depict a cold war Fulda Gap scenario accurately.

Not sure which update it'll be in, but updated RSBNs will be available in the coming week(s) null

Although I believe that the CA module leaves a lot to be desired (I find the UX abysmal, VR is broken, physics are laughable), I'm hoping that eventually, CA evolves into something better than a module that constantly evokes the likeness of a sullen temp who finishes their job unwillingly. One of the issues that I've run into is that I can't find an up to date reference on which units currently can be player-controlled. Since just bitching about this is too easy, here's the result of some hours of work trying to put together a list of units that can be controlled by the player through CA. If you find a unit that is missing from this list, please be so kind and comment here so I can add it to the list. My hope is that we can put together a complete list of CA units for everyone to use as a reference. CA player-controlled vehicles: AAA Bofors 40mm AAA Flak 38 AAA Flak Vierling 38 AAA M1 37mm AAA M45 Quadmount HB AAA ZU-23 Emplacement Closed AAA ZU-23 Emplacement AAA Zu-23 Emplacement Insurgent Closed AAA Zu-23 Emplacement Insurgent Ammo M30 Cargo Carrier APC AAV-7 APC BTR-80 APC BTR-RD APC M-113 APC M2A1 Halftrack APC MTLB APC Sd.Kfz.251 Halftrack APC TPz Fuchs ATGM HMMWV ATGM Stryker ATGM VAB Mephisto Bunker with Fire Control Car Daimerl Armored Car Willys Jeep Fire Fighter Vehicle AA Grad MRL FDDM HQ-7 LN (Player) IFV BMD-1 IFV BMP-1 IFV BMP-2 IFV BMP-3 IFV BTR-82A IFV LAV-25 IFV M1126 Stryker IFV M2A2 Bradley IFV Marder IFV Warrior LUV HMMWV Jeep LUV Horch 901 LUV Kettenrad LUV Kubelwagen Jeep LUV Land Rover LUV Tigr LUV UAZ Jeep M92 B600 drivable M92 Mj-1 drivable M92 P20 drivable M92 R11 Volvo drivable M92 Tug Harlan drivable MANPADS SA-18 Igla Grouse MANPADS SA-18 Igla-S Grouse MANPADS Stinger MBT Chieftain MBT Leclerc MBT Leopard 1A3 MBT Leopard-2A4 MBT Leopard 2A4Trs MBT Leopard 2A5 MBT Leopard 2A6M MBT M1A2 Abrams MBT M60A3 Patton MBT Merkava IV MBT T-55 MBT-T-72B MBT-T-80U MBT-T-90 MLRS 9A52 Smerch CM MLRS 9A52 Smerch HE MLRS 9K57 Uragan MLRS BM-21 Grad MLRS FDDM MLRS HL MLRS LC MLRS M270 MT Tyoe 59 PLZ 05 Refueler ATZ-5 Refueler ATZ-60 Tractor Refueler TZ-22 Tractor S-75 Tractor SAM Avenger (Stinger) SAM Chaparral SAM Linebacker SAM Roland ADS SAM SA-8 Osa Gecko SAM SA 9 Strela Gaskin SAM SA 13 Strela Gopher SAM SA 15 Tor Gauntlet SAM SA 19 Tunguska Grison Scout BRDM-2 Scout Cobra Scout HL with DSHK Scout HL with KORD Scout HMMWV Scout LC with DSHK Scout LC with KORD Scout M8 Greyhound Scout Puma SL Flakscheinwerfer (?) SPAA Gepard -- NO LONGER SPAA HL with ZU-23 SPAA LC with ZU-23 SPAA Vulcan SPAA ZSU-23-4 Shilka Gun Dish SPAA ZSU-57-2 SPAA ZU-23-2 Mounted Ural 375 SPG Brummbaer SPG Elefant SPG Jagdpanther SPG Jagdpanzer IV SPG M10 SPG Stryker MGS SPG StuG III SPG StuG IV SPH 2S1 Gvozdika SPH 2S3 Akatsia SPH 2S19 Msta SPH Dana SPH M109 Paladin SPH Sd,Kfz,124 Wespe SPH T155 Firtina SPM 2S9 Nona Tk Centaur IV Tk Churchill VII Tk Cromwell IV Tk M4 Sherman Tk M4A4 Sherman Firefly Tk Panther Tk PzIV Tk Tetrach Tk Tiger 1 Tk Tiger 2 Tractor M4 High Speed Truck Bedford Truck Jimmy 6x6 Truck KrAZ-6322 Truck Land Rover Truck M939 Heavy Truck Opel Blitz Truck Ural-375 Truck ZIL-135 ZBD-04A ZTZ-96B Enjoy, -ch

On a purely selfish level, of course I'm going to buy it. It's going to be the closest thing you can get to flying a real F35, in the same way that flying an F16 in DCS is the closest you can get to that, or the F18, or the Spitfire, or the Apache etc etc etc. That's why we're all here - it's as close as you can get, even if it's not exact. DCS is very good at the systems depth that really makes the difference with the F35 and the DAS information on the HMD is going to be wild in VR, I know it will. But do I think DCS SHOULD make the F35? Probably not. It's another entry in the 'yeah, they definitely announced this to get the community on side' list, it will cause endless headaches with people arguing that 'Fat Amy is too good and all the noobs are killing everyone' and 'I was in an F35 and I should have absolutely smoked the guy, it's not good enough' and the inevitable Warthunder style leaks that it will bring. I feel like it's giving the community what they want because they want it, not because ED feels they can do it to their usual standard. It degrades the reputation and value of DCS as well by bringing the fidelity down. We're already seeing people going 'F35 in DCS, where APKWS in Apache/F16 etc' and to be honest they have a point. Yes it might not be in that year of F16 but if anyone cares they can just restrict that weapon in their server anyway so just let us have it, it was on the aircraft at one point.

Yeah I agree, I am super happy that Ugra media is taking this on. These days that's definitely a sign of good, quality content to come.

I'm looking forward to this and can't wait! And I guarantee you: This will be the best selling module ED has ever made.

This has always made the most sense to me. DCS simulates aircraft much more than it simulates theaters or time periods. ED calls it a sandbox. Make the plane as it was, including things that were possible but weren't used. Either way the F-15 is long long overdue.

Nobody listens. They want to stick with the drama and pontificating. I don't know why you guys bother sometimes. This real world GA pilot is super happy to continue the dream of flying fast jets via your simulation of the F-35A

I support the development of the F-35 module. Back in the 90's, in the golden age of SIM's (wish that chapter of my life could come back) we got certainly a huge variety of titles of different quality standards and I flew most fo them. We Had highly praised F-22's (TAW), F-19 & F-117 (microprose) and the EF (DID), and nobody complained after acknoweleging that some aircrafts were not real or flying yet, or that most of the systems were classified (still are for old aircraft in this SIM). Im all in for more options in DCS, as if each module was a different sim. If you dont want it dont buy it. For those who play mostly on MP, I remind you we have had weapon and aircraft limitations set in place by different servers. If the F-35 upsets the balance, then you most likely you wont see it much online anyway.

This is unlikely to happen, while we are happy to consider community work we have to be very careful about what assets we take on. thank you I understand and that is your opinion, I wish you all the best even if the F-35A isn't something you want. As for other aircraft in DCS, it just depends on the public data available, consideration for local and international laws, while having the will and resources to take on a project. I am sure over time we will see many great aircraft come to DCS. We know we have enough public data to bring the F-35A to DCS and do it justice for a entertainment product. thank you

I just don't know, as of now. When it comes to F-35, that could be a vehicle for many upgrades and improvement in DCS as a whole, and I would suspect it could open the ways to refine some existing technologies and already existing features in more uniform fashion across the modules. I don't have a problem with F-35 per se, if I was to point out one, in my personal opinion, it is lacking enviroment of DCS. We have 1950's 1st gen jets, but almost no Korea-era assets and terrain. We have GCI-based interceptors like MiG-21 or 29, but no GCI, except rudimentary AWACS callouts. Radar and IFF modelling varies from module to module. Tu-95 still flies in the 90's era of Flanker 2.5, every interception is like travelling through history of flight sims. That also regards that infamous "Redfor disbalance" issue. There will rarely be balance in plane-to-plane comparison (like Sabre vs MiG-15). F-15 was flown the same year as MiG-21bis, 1972, enough said. Most of Red jets should operate in combination with GBAD net and GCI guidance, pretty rigid structure, compared to flexibility western designs started to emphasise on in later Cold War era. Again, enviromental, mission building issue, in my eyes, rather than directly related to specific module. I think dynamic campaign could solve some of those problems, bringing more tools to the table. I know fixes like that don't pay bills, new modules do, and if somebody is going to flesh out background for modules, they might feel an urge to eat and pay their rent. F-35 will be popular, and I hope income it will generate will help to develop other issues. Having said that, I see how F-35 can be surprising and controversial choice, and why questions will be raised in its role in the sim, as we know it today.

Reflected: Dont sell yourself short! I, for one, have bought many a module only after and because you made a campaign for it. For example, I wasnt gonna buy the Mossie. You made a campaign for it so I bought it just to fly your campaign. I wasnt gonna buy the p47, but I bought it just to fly your campaign. I wasnt gonna buy the bf-109, but I bought it just to fly your campaign. I wasnt gonna buy the FW-190 but I bought it just to fly your campaign. I dont even like jets much, but I got the F14 because you made a campaign for it. I have a strong feeling many others have been so motivated to fill DCS' money pockets because of your work and DCS knows it. Therefore you probably have a lot more influence then you realize! Make them get to work on the PTO stuff!

It'll certainly be a lot harder to excuse those, now.

It is always very interesting to hear more. I feel like this interview spoke to ED's audience as it has been developing in the past few years, but didn't speak to me as someone whose been in this since the Flanker 2 days... I do hope some of the questions in the next interview upload will cover some of the issues I think about. P.S. Honestly, the lack of support for some of the earlier Soviet/Russian/Warsaw Pact content is frustrating (e.g. the lack of fuse settings for Soviet cluster bombs, lack of fragmentation simulation impacting the Su-25/Mi-24/Mi-8, the inability of the Ka-50 to carry less than a full load of missiles per hardpoint - when all the other helicopters can now do this, the lack of 4th generation designs even as AI)... there is this extensive and ever increasing gap (in even basic features/maintenance) which seems to be going completely unnoticed by the developers.

Looking forward to this! Bring on the Eagle.

@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...

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

Some solution needs to be found. Waiting a decade per plane is just silly.