upyr1

I know ED has said they aren't going for balance, that is up to the mission designers. I don't blame ED for saying lack of information. There are some aircraft out there which we may never get enough information for which is why I ask for decent mod support. My ideal would be for the user files section to act as a repository for some common mod manager. Then I know some mods like project flanker you have an A2A version and an A2G version I'm wondering if that could be possible to fix.

With any luck this will inspire other developers to do modern Red for which a lot of people want.

I never asked for the F-35 but then again I simply didn't think that there would be enough data to make anything beyond an AI F-35. I'm not complaining about the F-35 just shocked and looking forward to it getting released. Then as I have brought up out of that 30%-40% that will be redacted what are things that ED simplifies to begin with? EW is simplified for starters, 9line said as much.

I know the sunk cost argument is a fallacy however with how long things stay in EA and how much things change over the EA period they might get better data. Also there's the fact people modern modules they might as well. They could make a few bucks and possibly grow the user base some. I'd be lying if I said the only lighting or Panther I wanted in DCS were the P-38, English Electric and F9F though I expected to see those before the battle Penguin. I think they have plans for Charlie and Bravo I'd love to see those too

I hope that the Codename Flanker team submit their work. I'm going to ask the guy who helps admin the DCS mods facebook group. I figure the reason the F-35 module is getting so much hate, is the simple fact that those on the consumer side of DCS simply don't know what ED's standards are and what is actually necessary to get a module done. If figure it is important for people to understand there are two aspects to a simulator procedural and performance. Procedural would be flipping the right switches and pressing all the right buttons. I know that Jello the Host of the Fighter Pilot Podcast stated that the F/A-18 nailed the procedural. Then there is performance- not only do we have the issue of flight model but also what the avionics can do. Obviously flight model is vital, obvious. As for the combat avionics, I'd assume that is the hardest thing to get performance data for. Also even when the data is available there is the question of what DCS actually models. I know some things are simplified because the data is top secret and other cases it is to save CPU and RAM. When I saw the module I first wondered if a military customer had asked for it. I saw that wasn't the case but that does raise one question which is how much do MCS (the professional version of DCS) and DCS actually differ?

I'd agree with that. There is no doubt in my mind that ED will be able to do the most realistic F-35 for the commercial market. ED's need to grow was the reason that I was excited about MAC, I figured it could be a good gateway to DCS. Also this is why I really hope to see some Land and Naval modules in the future. I don't know what a vin diagram of flight, tank, and naval simmers and wargamers would look like but I know some of us would instabuy a DCS Iowa module (like me).

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.