*** AI J-35 Draken AI coming to DCS World!! ***

[irisono]

With the upcoming modules F-104, Mig-23MLA, Mig-17F, the existing types Mig-19P, Mig-21, Tu-95, AJS37 and mods such as SU-15 Flagon (by Marco1985) and P-3C, the Draken would fit extremely well in Cold War scenarios based on the Kola Map. A Forrestal-type carrier with A-4E, F-4, C-2A, S-3B etc. would also be within the realm of possibility. All protagonists Norway, Sweden, Finland, USA and the USSR would be represented with good equipment. That would be a good prospect for all users who love historically based flight simulations.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, irisono said:

With the upcoming modules F-104, Mig-23MLA, Mig-17F, the existing types Mig-19P, Mig-21, Tu-95, AJS37 and mods such as SU-15 Flagon (by Marco1985) and P-3C, the Draken would fit extremely well in Cold War scenarios based on the Kola Map. A Forrestal-type carrier with A-4E, F-4, C-2A, S-3B etc. would also be within the realm of possibility. All protagonists Norway, Sweden, Finland, USA and the USSR would be represented with good equipment. That would be a good prospect for all users who love historically based flight simulations.

Add to the list the F-8 Crusader by M3.

[MAXsenna]

Add to the list the F-8 Crusader by M3.

A-7?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[zerO_crash]

@Cobra847 Is there any chance, after all this time, that J-35 Draken could be re-considered in the aspect of a full module? I have to admit, depending on preference, the AJS-37 is among the sweetest pair of deltas there is.
 

There is no doubt that it would be a success. I say, go ZON 3 on it!

Edited April 24 by zerO_crash

[MAXsenna]

@Cobra847 Is there any chance, after all this time, that J-35 Draken could be re-considered in the aspect of a full module? I have to admit, depending on preference, the AJS-37 is among the sweetest pair of deltas there is.
 
There is no doubt that it would be a success. I say, go ZON 3 on it!

I'm with this!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Volator]

On 4/24/2024 at 1:54 AM, zerO_crash said:

@Cobra847 Is there any chance, after all this time, that J-35 Draken could be re-considered in the aspect of a full module? I have to admit, depending on preference, the AJS-37 is among the sweetest pair of deltas there is.
 

There is no doubt that it would be a success. I say, go ZON 3 on it!

 

+1, even more so with Kola map now representing the natural environment of the Saab birds.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

My line of wish a tad different: JA-37 first then J-35

[zerO_crash]

JA-37 won't happen for at least as long as Gripen with its current datalink is in service. The reason, being stated before, is that JA-37 had the same datalink that the Gripen has.

 

Otherwise, it would definitely be a fantastic addition.

Edited May 2 by zerO_crash

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Shame

[samba_liten]

An older JA-37 without datalink? I'd still buy it!

[samba_liten]

To go back on topic; now that we have the Kola map, any news at all on the Draken would be much appreciated!

[PhantomHans]

On 5/1/2024 at 3:28 PM, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

My line of wish a tad different: JA-37 first then J-35

Same here, and...

On 5/1/2024 at 4:56 PM, zerO_crash said:

JA-37 won't happen for at least as long as Gripen with its current datalink is in service. The reason, being stated before, is that JA-37 had the same datalink that the Gripen has.

 

Otherwise, it would definitely be a fantastic addition.

 

I would be glad to pay money for a JA-37 without datalink, or with a fictional datalink to perform the function without revealing classified secrets, with a datalink just taken from the F-14 module, etc.  Anything, really, to get the JA-37 into the game.

In fact, I would be perfectly happy to pay for an FC3 level cockpit and avionics module of both the J-35 and JA-37, provided that the weapons, radar, and flight models were up to DCS standards.  Meaning that basically, I want to interact with the radar in a realistic way, I want the radar to perform in a realistic way, I want the jet to fly and maneuver in a realistic way, and I want its weapons to be employed and to perform in a realistic way, however I am willing to overlook simplifications and omissions elsewhere.

 

On 5/26/2024 at 9:19 AM, samba_liten said:

To go back on topic; now that we have the Kola map, any news at all on the Draken would be much appreciated!

I'm hoping that the Kola map will allow a campaign builder like @Reflected to cook up some REAL good stuff for us in the future...


One of my first flight sims was Fleet Defender.  Three of the six campaigns in it were centered around the "North Cape", basically that map extended a bit further south than what we have in game.
Those of you who had it will remember:
"Fighting Withdrawal" - The Soviets attack south through Norway, hopping from airbase to airbase, while TU-95s try to locate your carrier group.  Failure to keep them away means TU-22s and TU-16s attacking your carrier group in large numbers.  On land, NATO fights a losing battle and tries to escape.
"Return to Norway" - Your carrier group comes back, this time with another CVN, with the goal of sinking the Soviet fleet and assisting amphibious landings to take back Norway.  Failure means large numbers of land based strike fighters like SU-17 and SU-25 coming after your fleet with TU-16/22 not far behind.
"Kola Strike" - Attacks against Soviet bases on the Kola peninsula.

I say remake it.  Those had F-14s flying CAP and Intercept, and escorting F/A-18s, A-6s, and A-7s attacking land and sea targets.  Norwegian F-16s defending their home bases.  Sweden and Finland were neutral in those scenarios, and Swedish Viggens and Finnish MiG-21s would attack any airspace violators.  The Soviets had MiG-29s and SU-27s protecting their air assets.

[zerO_crash]

18 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

I would be glad to pay money for a JA-37 without datalink, or with a fictional datalink to perform the function without revealing classified secrets, with a datalink just taken from the F-14 module, etc.  Anything, really, to get the JA-37 into the game.

In fact, I would be perfectly happy to pay for an FC3 level cockpit and avionics module of both the J-35 and JA-37, provided that the weapons, radar, and flight models were up to DCS standards.  Meaning that basically, I want to interact with the radar in a realistic way, I want the radar to perform in a realistic way, I want the jet to fly and maneuver in a realistic way, and I want its weapons to be employed and to perform in a realistic way, however I am willing to overlook simplifications and omissions elsewhere.

Yes, but then you have a very subjective concept of a proper product. Just as all us purists, I can guarantee you that most customers would be lost at; "Almost J35, except US datalink...". There has to be seriousness, credibility and authenticity to a module. I'm sure you'd find a mod with such a spec.

 

Point is, while we all would love it, if there real barriers/objections to its creation, then we'll have to wait. If early variants didn't have the datalink, thay could be something (as I understand, that is the main reason for it not having been made). Still, the silence on the issue from HB, seems to be a answer in itself. Whether budget, potency or pure will, I doubt we'll get anything more for now.

[PhantomHans]

2 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Yes, but then you have a very subjective concept of a proper product. Just as all us purists, I can guarantee you that most customers would be lost at; "Almost J35, except US datalink...". There has to be seriousness, credibility and authenticity to a module. I'm sure you'd find a mod with such a spec.

You know.  Sometimes, you have to wing it a little bit. 

If they would add it without the datalink and simply say "Datalink classified, it's not here." then that would be perfectly fine by me.  You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet.

If they would add it with a fictional "This is close to how it works but not exactly it" datalink, then that would be perfectly fine by me.  You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet with A datalink.

If they would add it with the US datalink, "Hey this one does the thing, but it's not really right", I'm still OK with that.  We still get the jet, and we get a datalink.

They could do that, and say "You'll get the right thing later, when it's declassified, in 40 years".

But some people just can't compromise, and so, they get to have nothing instead.

 

ETA: What I think they should do, is to do the best job they can.  If they decide to make the J-35 and/or JA-37 as playable FC3 level modules, I will purchase if the price is right.  If they have to leave something out, it should be declared that it was left out, and explained why it was left out.  If they decide to do a substitution or to just "make something up", then they should declare what was done, and explain why.  That's all.  I think in a simulation it's perfectly acceptable to say openly "Hey, we didn't really know how this worked, it's all classified anyway, so, here's our best guess, this is why." and give it a shot.

Edited May 28 by PhantomHans

[draconus]

6 hours ago, PhantomHans said:

If they would add it with a fictional...

No, they wouldn't. This is not the way of DCS. There are mods and other games with relaxed take on realistic modeling.

We have what we have. Enjoy and accept the facts. Otherwise you'll be like the modern redfor aircraft crowd accusing ED of making NATO-only sim and nerfing all the others.

You can also fully express yourself here:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/

but you won't be the first or the last to ask for lower fidelity modules or unofficial weapons.

[PhantomHans]

Just now, draconus said:

No, they wouldn't. This is not the way of DCS. There are mods and other games with relaxed take on realistic modeling.

We have what we have. Enjoy and accept the facts.

There are tons of things in DCS that aren't finished, are missing features, have parts not modeled, or have guesswork involved.

 

I'm glad all of THOSE things got your personal stamp of approval.

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

There are tons of things in DCS that aren't finished, are missing features, have parts not modeled, or have guesswork involved.

I'm fully aware and I'd gladly see them removed or fixed. Still not a good reason to pile on more of them.

[PhantomHans]

3 minutes ago, draconus said:

I'm fully aware and I'd gladly see them removed or fixed. Still not a good reason to pile on more of them.

You heard him Heatblur.  The F-14 has knobs in the cockpit labeled "not modeled" on the tool tip and some things in the cockpit not modeled at all.  Turn off the entire module until this is solved please.

 

And some of the settings for the AJS-37 jammer aren't modeled, please remove the module until that's fixed.

 

The F-16C doesn't have the data cartridge modeled yet either so we should turn that whole module off too.

[zerO_crash]

12 hours ago, PhantomHans said:

You know.  Sometimes, you have to wing it a little bit. 

If they would add it without the datalink and simply say "Datalink classified, it's not here." then that would be perfectly fine by me.  You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet.

If they would add it with a fictional "This is close to how it works but not exactly it" datalink, then that would be perfectly fine by me.  You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet with A datalink.

If they would add it with the US datalink, "Hey this one does the thing, but it's not really right", I'm still OK with that.  We still get the jet, and we get a datalink.

They could do that, and say "You'll get the right thing later, when it's declassified, in 40 years".

But some people just can't compromise, and so, they get to have nothing instead.

 

ETA: What I think they should do, is to do the best job they can.  If they decide to make the J-35 and/or JA-37 as playable FC3 level modules, I will purchase if the price is right.  If they have to leave something out, it should be declared that it was left out, and explained why it was left out.  If they decide to do a substitution or to just "make something up", then they should declare what was done, and explain why.  That's all.  I think in a simulation it's perfectly acceptable to say openly "Hey, we didn't really know how this worked, it's all classified anyway, so, here's our best guess, this is why." and give it a shot.

 

No, my dear Hans. Picking an aircraft to model, is not about slicing it into pieces and modelling based on whim. There are integral parts to every aircraft, where upon exluding the following, would be changing the metric and outcome of the final module. You have a widely different view to what customers seek with this product (authenticity and realism) - it is absolutely not up for discussion.

 

Generally speaking, make wishlist items in the wishlist-thread. Such low-fidelity items are what MAC/New-FC is being made for. With time, when that product line is more defined (and separated), it might become potentially feasible. The inherent request, has nothing to do with DCS however, no matter how you try to angle it. (You have a poor conceptual knowledge of what a simulator is, if looking for excuses, thereby lack of knowledge or information, to detract from its very nature.).

[zerO_crash]

5 hours ago, PhantomHans said:

You heard him Heatblur.  The F-14 has knobs in the cockpit labeled "not modeled" on the tool tip and some things in the cockpit not modeled at all.  Turn off the entire module until this is solved please.

 

And some of the settings for the AJS-37 jammer aren't modeled, please remove the module until that's fixed.

 

The F-16C doesn't have the data cartridge modeled yet either so we should turn that whole module off too.

You also have to learn about the idea of perspective and narration. The lack of modelling of a knob or switch related to temperature adjustment in the cockpit or mobile lavatory, is not to be confused with requesting a F-15C without its radar or datalink! Don't twist arguments around! 
 

While I personally (and likely other veterans) would gladly pay big $$$ for everything modelled, I cannot see people generally willing to jump to $200 per module or more. This is not a question of knowledge, but rather budgetary means. Price vs. value - read up on it.

 

And just to decimate your argument, all of the three modules you mentioned, are in "Early Access". With everything being #SubjectToChangeTM, I don't know what you are trying to build an argument on... modules still in development?

 

You want yours, and that's fair. Do, however use some sense and make those requests for the appropriate product line.

 

Case closed.

Edited May 28 by zerO_crash

[PhantomHans]

Right I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree and use that ignore button to enhance our experience here.

[zerO_crash]

Never looked for any agreement. It takes a competent person to admit fault in the event of lack of argument. 
 

Going back to topic.

 

Hope HB can get back on this. Needless to say, with Kola created and a solid chunk of Sweden present, it's almost a crime not to have more Swedish units. Be it AI, or human controlled.

Edited May 28 by zerO_crash