upyr1

I know there is talk about adding napalm to DCS it would be cool to see the Zabs come back

2 weeks? seriously I'm looking forward to seeing more about the F-35

My question is wether or not it would be possible to fix this with the Su-57? either AI or flyable. This is my biggest concern I'd like to know more about ED's standards and what other planes have we seen get rejected that could be release to the F-35's standards? This is why I don't expect it to be on many PVP servers (unless we get the Su-57 either as a mod or officially) or F-35s on bothsides This is a concern of mine. I can see it attracting new players but I can also see it causing problems with the base. All I know is if the F-35 had been released as a MAC module I'd have felt better People always say this about every new module. I don't know how big the ED staff is or how many developer teams they have but I have stated DCS needs to release modules Balance isn't an issue with PVE and single-player, but I figure if you are interested in more balance then you are better off with Cold war era servers The question I have with the F-35 and J-8 are what data is actually needed to do a good module? This is a good question, and related to this is using the F-35 standards what other modules are possible? the D and super cats would be awesome

If someone can cobble together a Su-57 that meets ED's standards with open source documents that would be awesome.

I hope so

It wouldn't be ideal for a PVP server out single player or PVE it will be fun

At the end of the day I think the real issue here is the What the factor. We've heard countless times when we ask about XYZ that there wasn't enough open sources for something then the F-35 gets announced. So I think people would like to know what is really going on. Does this mean ED's standards or getting lowered or what? If ED is lowering their standards I could see a mixed bag there. One side some developer might try doing the Su-35 or some other modern Red-For module Then there are DCS purists who go against the concept behind DCS. I've said it before I would be a lot happier if ED had not killed Modern Air Combat. Now we have the F-35 I might at least give it two weeks

I think kill marks should be standard for every plane

The F-35A module really shows why I wish they had not killed MAC. It would have been perfect for MAC. MAC wasn't going to be full fidelity so it would have worked. Now that we have the F-35 announced we're now left with the simple question buy or pass?

No one back then promised to be as realistic as possible which is the DCS selling point. I would have rather have seen the F-35 as a Lock on module sadly that aint the case

I'm only stating what I figure probably happened when I saw the F-35A- not what happened. I understand that. I am not sure if I am going to get the F-35 module, I know if the lighting we were getting were the P-38 or English Electric I would be happy.

When I saw the F-35A I figured that ED probably got a contract for an F-35 from a military customer and had some SME overtly telling them (redact this or that). From my understanding the B and C are basically identical to the A in terms of avionics and switchology (cockpit stuff) the only differences from those perspectives are the fan for S/VTOL and the switch to fold the wings. The flight model would differ slightly with the C being the most different (the A and B IRCC had the same prototype)

I've also seen 9-line state there is enough information about the Su-27 to do a module. Anyway, my questions are the following. First what information is essential for a module and what is actually available for the F-35 or anything else for that matter? There is a big difference between not getting data for something that would be modeled and not being able to get data on something that isn't that well modeled in the first place.

The Sooner the Mig-29 is out the sooner they can shut up an take my money

You don't go on that server, you can play off line or on different servers. I'm sure that you aren't the only person who thinks the only lightnings that have a place in DCS are weather phenomena, the P-38, and English Electric Lighting

Even without the F-35 this would be on my list

That's good to hear. I'm looking forward to DCS Flanker. Would the 33 be possible too?

That's the only answer here, if you don't want it for any reason don't buy it

That's a good point to bring up, I know Eagle says DCS needs to be as realistic as possible. However even given that guideline there is that question of what ED considers to be good enough.

The ole loading screen paradigm a better loading screen would be nice however if it increases the time to load then it won't be. In short I'm in if it won't increase the load time

When we get a dynamic campaign I would love to have the option to select different eras. We could have a drop down for a faction with different eras and one that is labeled mixed. So if you wanted you could do a campaign where a modern Naval Task force is invading the Marianas in World War II or you could do a free-for-all era where you have Jugs flying alongside Warhawgs

We also need better artillery mechanics AI. I know with towed Artillery I'd love to see it hook up to a truck after shooting to simulate shooting and scooting, next Foward observers I don't think the E-3 has changed much but the E-2 had the propellers changed if I remember right. Also on the Naval side I'd love to see the KA-3 and if we ever get better EW then the EA-3, EB-66, I made a list of possible US, French and Soviet ships I'd like to see added As I stated I don't expect everything on the list (at least not quickly) I expect ED and the other developers to pick a combination that features ships with a fan base like Enterprise and the IOWAs as well as whatever destroyers and cruisers they feel would provide the best coverage. In short, If I can have a dynamic campaign with an amphibious operation in 1986 with the Tarawa, Forestal, and an Iowa class battleship and period-correct escorts I'll be happy yes and we also need better amphibious assault mechanics for the landing craft

Glad to hear that you are enjoying the processes. I hope to get more updates

I hope they rename the option from repair to replace and the time limit would be based on getting a new plane ready

I think that would work, with how classified ECM is I'd expect something like that to be used