howie87

Is it though?... Really? Three times more work than designing a 6dof cockpit and high resolution external model complete with animations and FC3 avionics? Come on, I'm not saying it's easy but you're pushing it there. In my eyes, I already own 75% of these 'new' modules by owning FC3. Therefore I value the AFM alone to be worth $5 per aircraft. If ED want to offer it to FC3 owners for $15 per aircraft, that's fine but I won't buy it.

The problem that FC3 owners are facing is that we've already paid for parts 1, 2 and 4 of this: 1- Detailed 3D model (high polygon / high res textures) 2- 6 DOF cockpit 3- AFM 4- Lock On level cockpit systems Why should we pay $20 just for the AFM when we own 75% of each module already? The obvious solution would be to make the FC3 upgrade $20, for all the advanced flight models ($5 per aircraft).

I guess the Huey is practically a civilian aircraft anyway...

+1 Cluster bombs still ruin my frames though.

Not for most people. In fact right now you can buy 3 full DCS quality modules for less. I really hope this is a free update for FC3 owners like the testers are saying but I'd be happy to pay $20 for all the advanced flight models bundled together and for ED's hard work. Just not worth $20 each to me.

I stand by my previous statement. Also, most people who click on this link will have already have an interest in civilian aircraft. Look at the figures 60% yes 40% other than yes (split 3 ways) There should only be 2 options.

FC3 AFM's... Day one purchase for me. Props to ED for listening to the customers and upping the realism factor. Excellent work. EDIT: Oh snap! I assumed the $20 price would be for all the AFM upgrades to FC3 aircraft... Not for EACH ONE! This is crazy money on top of the $50+ dollars I have already forked out for Lockon + FC3. The A-10A was announced as including a FREE AFM when I purchased the beta. Now it's an EXTRA $20?! PLEASE CLARIFY THIS WAGS!

Biased poll is biased. Yes or no only please. Personally, I don't want civilian aircraft unless I can shoot them down... and then it's still a maybe. But I don't care a long as I get the Nevada terrain. So if I had to vote yes or no, it would be a no. But you forced people in my position to split our vote into 3 different categories. This is biased and not a fair representation of the true figures. You might as well have made the options: Yes No Maybe, if I get a free car I don't care, as long as I get a pay rise.

Yeah, I get about 40-50fps on a mid range gaming rig I built 2 years ago. No complaints from me. EDGE will hopefully bring DX11 and multi core support though, which will improve things for everyone.

- Too many details of the F-35 are classified to make a simulation as realistic as the other DCS modules so far. (Try finding sustained/instantaneous turn and climb rate figures) - I think they will make it as realistic as they can, with the data that's available. - I would rather see them design a module for an aircraft with more available data. - I do not feel it will be as challenging or rewarding to fly as non-stealth aircraft with flight models and systems based on real world parameters.

+1 Surely some of the ED devs must fly with this stick anyway? Always confuses me why they don't include a default mapping for any aircraft other than the A-10C.

Oh dear... Why is it that whenever I mention the 'R word' on here (realism) people jump down my throat?! I take back everything I said. The F-35 will be 100% realistic. Lockheed will declassify every aspect of the flight model, avionics and weapons systems just for us. Come on guys... Seriously Pull your heads out of your afterburners. EDIT: For those of you pointing out that the F-35 exists in real life, therefore its inclusion in DCS IS realistic, you are entirely missing my point. I am not disputing its existence or suggesting we 'nerf' the USAF for being 'OP'. As for the person suggesting the F-35 will be a challenge to fly because you "will fly so close to SAM's that you will be within firing range when detected" - This doesn't sound like a challenge to me. It sounds like bad piloting. The F-35 has some of the most advanced radar and missile detection systems ever created and has a radar signature the size of a marble. Why would you be flying low and blind?

Sorry, it's a no from me. I'd prefer to see other things like more high fidelity jets, naval ops, dynamic campaign etc first. Once we have all the above, then it's a maybe. I'd still rather fly over the ground and Mach 2 than trundle across it at Mach 0.02 though ;) Maybe EDGE will change all that!

Where's the fun in flying something that can't be locked on radar and shot at? I'll be sticking with the F/A-18C for a bit more realism and more of a challenge. Wouldn't mind flying with a couple of F- 35's doing SEAD though. That way we can make the target zone real hot ;)

If you read my uninformed statements correctly you would see that: "I'm NOT saying that it WON'T be realistic within the realms of the available data" No, the F/A-18E is not an F35A but there is probably more public data available for it. ED still does not think there is enough however. And yes, Falcon BMS is an example of an excellent F-16 flight model based on publicly available data.

I'm not saying it will be an arcade game and I'm not saying it won't be realistic within the realms of the available data. My only concern is that if ED think there isn't enough declassified material to make their own F/A-18E, why are they letting a 3rd party have a crack at the F-35? There is also a huge difference between not having access to classified information such as IFF and ECM operation and not having access to the basic data required to make a realistic flight model.

My point exactly. There are so many incredible aircraft out there that are already largely declassified that I don't see the need to model one based around speculation. There might be a couple of videos of the avionics in the public domain but what about when you dig in deeper? How about instantaneous/sustained turn rates? How does the degradation of one system affect another? What about increased radar cross section and induced drag from opening the weapon bay doors? How does it 'feel'? How does the fly by wire system interpret the pilots inputs? How do the autopilot modes work? Even if Lockheed Martin are officially backing this, I think it's incredibly unlikely they'd want to give away data that could potentially be used to find a chink in the F-35's armour so to speak. The things that makes DCS so great as a simulation is leaning about all these complex systems that interact with one another and finding a way to exploit them to your advantage and overcome their weaknesses. Do you think Lockheed will want to put that information out in the open? I want simulation, not approximation.

The main problem I have with an F-35 is that the reason I play DCS is for the realism. OK, so the A-10C, KA50 and Huey might not be 100% but they're nudging the the 90's. It's a simple fact that by opening up the sim to modules that speculate too heavily on classified data you have to create more weapons systems and avionics that are even more speculative in order to combat them. All of a sudden you don't know if you're playing a sim or a work of fiction.

Probably not going to bother with this one... I can see a lot of kids joining DCS just to zoom around in an F-35 which they will adamantly proclaim is '100% realistic'. Meanwhile us A-10C types will be left shaking our heads as they purge us from the sky with their all-aspect missiles and all weather, 360 degree visibility. Even if it is realistic, I think it has the potential to ruin the game for a lot of players. As the website proudly states: YOU'RE FLYING AN F-35 OR YOU'RE A TARGET WHICH ONE ARE YOU? My answer? Neither. I got shot down too many times by a stealth fighter and now I'm not playing anymore.

The F-16 is my absolute favourite aircraft. Love the way it pulls 9 G's and pushes Mach 2. Fair enough, it can't land on a carrier, but sustained turn, acceleration and climb performance are all ahead of the F/A-18. Throw on some conformal fuel tanks and it turns into a mini F-15E at half the cost. It's a cracking little pocket rocket that I'd love to see it in DCS one day :D

Does that pearl of wisdom count as this Friday's update? :megalol:

I'm using the warthog. Wish there was a way to make the collective brake automatically operate when I move the collective though... I have it mapped to the mic switch at the moment.

This sounds great. Count me in! Pretty sure it would be easy to get hold of wire for the WEP and emergency rich setting. That's the kind of thing you shouldn't be using too often anyway!

How will WEP be implemented on the throttle?

Great stuff. Keep the patching coming. It's good to see the auto updater being used to its full potential.