hotrod525

It's not on the product page (preorder page), this is why i havent seen this, thanks for providing !

With that baby upcoming, what is the stance on Tanker capability ? It would provide ALOT to D.C.S.

DCS is game design for entertainment, you and i simply dont share the same vision of that, it's okay. They took liberties on other modules, i dont understand why they could not on this one, specialy since we will not have much of the fancy stuff. So far we are looking at a 80 USD module that will only be an flying AESA (so basicly just a uber radar that can be modded in a .lua file) not realy capable of air fighting, not realy capable of penetration and not realy capable of stand-off / air-ground deprive of most of it's EW capability. That sounds promising no ? Totaly what people would expect from the first 5th gen fighter in DCS. Anyway in the end people will vote with their money.

And software, and capability, etc. That's the point.

Clearly, it involves super black magic and has absolutely nothing to do with how it's done on any other platform. Legend has it that engineers at Lockheed are working on an OBLIVION portal so pilots can sacrifice cans of Zyns and Monster to the god SEAD, lord of anti-radiation lightning II. Anyway, as mention above, lets agree to disagree, plane wont have it, ED will cherry pick on what they do or not, It will be a realy nice half-capable aircraft.

And how would they be according to you ? In the end, the plane locate the emitter, jam it with it's AESA (thing that we will not be able to, till proven otherwise), provide relevant information to the missile (i.e. position, frequency, bearing, range, etc), magnum when within WEZ and that's it. There is not so many ways of doing it and it will have the same functions as other airframe cause those are missile based, F-35 will provide a much better sensing, that's it. There is no magic involve... just logic. For those who dont like the idea, they can choose not to operate the weapon, block it in their mission / server. We are playing a game design for entertainment, ill stand my point for playability over hyper-fidelity. Anyway, we clearly have 2 opinions that wont reconciliate so lets agree to disagree. Have a good day mate.

IRL ? Of course, different architechture altought it's probably still the standard BUS, etc, the weapon is also quite known and i'm confident that LHM will do it. In DCS ? What can we assess of the F35 ? - It is highly likely to have the capability to geolocate radar / emission with high precision, so a F16 HTP on steroids, -- This mean that it is highly likely to be able to hand-off that to a HARM missile, just like it does in F16 / F18 --- How it is likely to be displayed to the pilot ? One could say that is is likely to be shown just like the rest of the information fusioned by the aircaft, on the WAD. ---- How could E.D. decide to implement this ? Well lets put a box around the emitter geo-located on the WAD display that show everything already. Is is realistic ? To me it's seems fair. It is how the real aircraft will do it ? IDK, does it realy matter ? We are not flying the real thing anyway.

They can use what they know of the F-16C and the F/A-18C... They can do an "accurate guesstimate" too. How will they model E.W. in the aircraft ? (TBF I highly doubt we will have any EW capability) They are unlikely to find any docs on that altought, base on public knowledge can be extrapoled, etc, within the self-imposed E.D. limit (as mention by Wags on a 64D video) DCS is a game, if E.D. decide the aircraft carry this or that, it'll. Just like they added "CODE" function to FA18C. And let's not talk about the Frankenhelo that KA-50 "3" is. So basicly my point is : Let's take some liberty if need be, DCS is a GAME, E.D. should value the playability more than being stock in so-called "high-fedility" extremism. The Purist can block the payload on their mission / server, the other, can enjoy a more versatile multi-role 5th gen fighter. Everybody wins.

I'm getting tired of this "no documentation" game, realy to the point we are at now, why would they deny yet another capability ? Can we atleast have the AGM-88C ? Please dont tell me something like "It dosent fit timeframe", in the end, integrating a missile that is in service for 30+ years, is only a matter of "firmware" update and making sure it release safely from aircraft. An opinion is worth another but they should go for the most capability possible, otherwise it feels pointless, F-16C and F/A-18C would have more playability options. Their is a limit of what an AESA and "stealth" can do "fun wise". https://www.naval-technology.com/news/lockheed-martin-selected-to-integrate-harm-missiles-on-global-f-35s/?cf-view

Hi Currenthill, First off, congrats for your making into DCS core ! As title said, if time allow, could you make us a LAV-6 or a LAV-3 (since you have stryker already) please ? Thanks!

then why NVG are centered on HUD and not JHMCS ? Anyway, i've brought it up, will see in 3 years when modules is release (in ealry acces).

My english is probably not good enought to get my point across, it's not my native language and there is subtility and i dont get, so ill use images : Thats the default view in DCS, no change at all, i've mark it to point out what i mean, that red rectangle is where you are looking outside the cockpit in almost any modules; Now, ill add where the HMD is center in the screen, i mean it show itself at -14 right off the bat at start : You see where im going with this now ? The default view put HMD half on UFCP / nose and half on the bottom of the plane windshield...

Hi, I'll go straight to the point, will there be an option to move the helmet symbology ? Like a special option of something ? Cause anyone who ever use the HMD in F16/F18 must admit that having the damn thing centered on screen while the HUD and exterior stand in the upper half of screen feel... uneasy or annoying at best. You have to do weird head movements with TrackIR just to bring up the damn thing... E.D. never addressed this on either plane, I assume they just don’t care. But at least those planes have HUDs, now that the helmet is supposed to replace it, it’s going to be awful if the view stays the way it is. So will there be an option for it ? Or will ED atleast consider it ?

To the point we are, they should go for the most capability, otherwise their will be no point. It would only be a stealthy aesa equip less capable F16/F18...

Hello folks, To Mods : please delete if i'm like the 4743625612th threads about it , TY So now that the box is open with the upcoming DCS F35A module, like most of you i feel that a "line" have been cross. To be honest, i realy dont care, im quite sure that it will be as complex and as close as it could be. In the end of the day, from 4 to 5th gen avionics have not changed much in term of user interface. The computing power have, but there isnt many way of showing fuel on a MFD. So i have no doubt about the fidelity, over all, etc. My axis on this is more "documentation" and "other self impose rules" from E.D.; Why can't i have a faked Datalink system that would link my F18C to ships like they would IRL or have E3 acting as hub to "connect" A10C, F16 and F18 / etc ? Or why you limit some functions of DL in 64D (As mention in a interview a while back) ? You could insert the thousands of request peoples had that have been rejected. EW have been asked for years, for years we where told "documentation" & "sensitivity", wich are good points. On the other end, i havent ever seen anybody requesting a super duper deep EW in DCS, just some "abritrary" / "faked" effect, still rejected. And here we are with a module that will litteraly be a super-duper-sensitive stuff from sensor to airframe base on OSINT and pilot feelings. Where are the new boundaries ?