NineLine

Thanks all, I will be checking all these again internally to see how they are doing. Thanks!

If any of you feel there is an issue here, make sure to make a proper bug report with track(s). Thanks.

Many times it's not having the dev hours to put into it right now. We have a long list of things customers would like added.

Please stay on topic. Thanks.

Of course, we will include the helmet display; we could not do the f-35 without it as it does not have a HUD. As for tinted visors, we are investigating for all our aircraft.

Here is what I have so far: As for the viewer, we are discussing some solutions right now. I will share when I have something firm on this. Thanks!

This issue is reported, when we have more news we will share. Thanks.

Reel it in there... I didnt say anything about NATOPs or about using it or not, I only commented on the picture. I will have to ask about what sources we have.

With all due respect, I have made plenty of liveries, even doing it back when all I knew or was able to do was inside the game itself. So as I told you elsewhere, we are looking into it. Thanks.

Guys, you need to settle down a little, I have asked about a solution to the model editor issue, but we need to protect our models, blame those who like to steal them. But I have asked for a solution that will work here. We have asked for the description.lua example and helmet and pilot textures. But please, let's not blow this out of proportion give us time to look into it, piling on will not help here.

Sadly we need a little more than a picture. It could be nothing more than a CATM. Thanks!

I'm sorry, but we have said why this change has happened as our models and such have been stolen, and we had to plug that hole. I agree it would be nice to make the model viewer work but protect our IP as well, but it just isn't available yet, so it is old-school painting for now until we do get something better. We have livery competitions with great prizes all the time, I do not see that as a sign that we are trying to get rid of community modding or somehow suppress anyone.

Obviously for ours, it's up to DLC Campaign Creators if they want to do their own, and user created missions would need to be done by them.

They would need to be resaved with the new aircraft.

Something odd is going on because I can overheat the engine to where steam is pouring out, then take action to cool it down and continue on so its less about management and more about some sort of odd bug, all the tracks I can get, and the shorter the better appreciated. Thanks.

This has changed and will probably continue to change as we refine our design and scope to best match F-35 period we are simulating. Thanks.

We are already talking to Mr Eastwood

Sounds like something we wold talk more as development unfolds. Thanks.

Most missile and defensive systems are highly classified and require other types of research. This is nothing new even for the age of fighters and weapons we have now.

I believe we have all the research done on the Me-262, but we opted for more interesting WWII aircraft, I hope we get back to it one day. But how good it would be, realistically modelled, I am not sure, but would be fun to find out.

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.

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 thought my little speech was nice and that is your take away, hurts man... really hurts.

What a concept, a business trying to remain profitable But seriously, DCS needs to grow, it needs to expand. The newer aircraft always do better no matter how popular Cold War, WWII, etc may seem. If we grow stagnate we will not continue to thrive. We must keep pushing the hobby further than it has been, this is what makes DCS a survivor in a wasteland of simulator games from the 90s on. Continuing to strive to do more, be more and offer more. Not everyone likes change or embraces it, but growth in DCS will benefit everyone, allowing us to do more and be more.

The F-35 should grow and expand DCS in different ways including weapons. The final say on weapons will come a little later when we see what can and can't be done here.