The unofficial "2025 and Beyond" video hype / speculation & discussion thread

[mikko.1842]

1 hour ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

If they can find the way to do F-35A, why not JA-37, JAS-39 and Rafael?

As a French guy, I can only talk about Rafale. Dassault (aka Rafale's manufacturer) have a very strong policy about their intellectual property. They are very touchy about it, to the point that they will take down any mod that uses the actual name of their aircraft. They have a well known history of taking down Rafale mods in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Same reason why Razbam used "M-2000C" and not "Mirage 2000C" for their DCS module.

The other problem would be the required military confidentiality level for lots of Rafale's systems.

To sum it up, if you don't pay some humongous amount of money to Dassault, you have zero chance to release a full fidelity module, and it would be a Rafale F1 / block 1 standard at best (pretty close to an airframe without systems).

Edited January 17 by mikko.1842

[HARTMANN1145]

Please look at upgrading the Warbirds please ED..a very big part of this great Sim.

[giullep]

I want only the sniper pod for the F-16, and the data card….

[Stratos]

On 1/16/2025 at 10:38 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

Claims by Kate on discord, about Mig-23 coming to DCS.... (from russian forum).

I want to see it with my eyes, have a link? And who's Kate?

[giullep]

2 ore fa, giullep ha scritto:

I want only the sniper pod for the F-16, and the data card….

From newsletter i think no Dynamic campaign in 2025…

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

12 hours ago, mikko.1842 said:

As a French guy, I can only talk about Rafale. Dassault (aka Rafale's manufacturer) have a very strong policy about their intellectual property. They are very touchy about it, to the point that they will take down any mod that uses the actual name of their aircraft. They have a well known history of taking down Rafale mods in Microsoft Flight Simulator. Same reason why Razbam used "M-2000C" and not "Mirage 2000C" for their DCS module.

The other problem would be the required military confidentiality level for lots of Rafale's systems.

To sum it up, if you don't pay some humongous amount of money to Dassault, you have zero chance to release a full fidelity module, and it would be a Rafale F1 / block 1 standard at best (pretty close to an airframe without systems).

This is enlightening. Thank you, mate.

[MAXsenna]

I want to see it with my eyes, have a link? And who's Kate?

Kate is the CEO of ED. The stuff about MiG-23 was posted on Discord I believe. Basically said, one way or another it will come to DCS "once upon a time".

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Kappa-131st]

I propose to rename DCS : DCA : Digital Combat Arcade

[waterman]

Level playing field - Be careful what you wish for ...

How about a Digital Combat Arcade with a level playing field -

 

Just use your imagination its now only a game.

Have fun

Blue USA F35A`s      VS       Red Russian F35A`s

Have some good old Shoot em up Arcade Fun see how long you last !

 

Edited January 18 by waterman

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

16 hours ago, Badger1-1 said:

I hoped that this new approach by ED, will open the door for much more Redfor

It will, but not (entirely) in the way we'd want to. ED absolutely will include more modern RedFor (they have to if they want to make the presence of an F-35 in DCS make any sense whatsoever) but as AI only. This has been stated by NL. Something NL also said was that this is breaking down a barrier: ED making an F-35 is making a lot of other things possible in DCS. We'll have to wait and see what exactly that will be. But if it means better EW/ECM/CCM/IADS simulation, golden times are ahead for DCS.

[Punkmonkey22]

51 minutes ago, waterman said:

Level playing field - Be careful what you wish for ...

How about a Digital Combat Arcade with a level playing field -

 

Just use your imagination its now only a game.

Have fun

Blue USA F35A`s      VS       Red Russian F35A`s

Have some good old Shoot em up Arcade Fun see how long you last !

 

Let's repeat it again for those at the back of the room who didn't hear it. NoBoDy Is FoRcInG yOu To BuY iT. Don't like it? Ignore it! 

[Badger1-1]

36 minutes ago, Punkmonkey22 said:

Let's repeat it again for those at the back of the room who didn't hear it. NoBoDy Is FoRcInG yOu To BuY iT. Don't like it? Ignore it! 

You´re missing the point. Its not that people dont want a F35, its all that it stands for is what gets people upset. And not buying it, doesnt change a bit where DCS is going since this will be a major step in one direction. I love the F35 and I think they will do a good job, just for the love of god nobody preorder

[Convoy]

1 hour ago, Punkmonkey22 said:

Let's repeat it again for those at the back of the room who didn't hear it. NoBoDy Is FoRcInG yOu To BuY iT. Don't like it? Ignore it! 

Not how it works. The point is, is the module has to be of a certain level of realism and quality to be "worthy" of DCS. the bar shouldn't be lowered to allow a module. Because then all we're going to get is "that'll do" modules. 

[Punkmonkey22]

5 minutes ago, Convoy said:

Not how it works. The point is, is the module has to be of a certain level of realism and quality to be "worthy" of DCS. the bar shouldn't be lowered to allow a module. Because then all we're going to get is "that'll do" modules. 

This isn't new though. The Black Shark 3 is largely guesswork, the JF-17 is guesswork adding block II features to the block I. ED making what is going to be essentially an FC-level jet but with clicky cockpit isn't going to prevent the likes of Aerges and Heatblur from continuing to make intricately modelled aircraft. What it does do is allow some more people who don't have the time to invest in learning 400 pages of manual to take part, just like FC does. It isn't going to "become Warthunder" like people claim, it just opens to door to simpler aircraft for less serious players, and allow more airframes to be added to the roster.

I don't understand why you people feel the need to gatekeep. Nobody is stopping you enjoying what you do the way you do it. I presume you already have modules you own? They aren't going to suddenly become "arcade" versions. They will still be the same level of detail they currently are.

[falcon_120]

isn't going to prevent the likes of Aerges and Heatblur from continuing to make intricately modelled aircraft. What it does do is allow some more people who don't have the time to invest in learning 400 pages of manual to take part, just like FC does. ...

I'm raising an eyebrow with the Aerges and heatblur example as being the same... nothing against Aerges at all (bought both c101 and F1) but aerges F1 radar simulation is arcadish at best AtM. Heatblur f4 radar is a thing of beauty

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[BuzzU]

Ok, I watched the video 4 more times and saw new stuff each time. It is a good video.

 

I've decided to buy the F-35A too. I'm getting old ED. Hurry up.

[BuzzU]

21 hours ago, JupiterJoe said:

Come on Dude!  I'm saying you can land vertically and conventionally.  What's not to love?

 

Give Superman a cookie. He looks mad.

[JupiterJoe]

9 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

 

Give Superman a cookie. He looks mad.

Don't make me flick peanuts at you.

[Skyhammer]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

ED absolutely will include more modern RedFor (they have to if they want to make the presence of an F-35 in DCS make any sense whatsoever) but as AI only.

then its pretty much uselees to bring "newer" REDFOR...even now they are nothing more than "Target drones" for Spamraam Trucks/ Blue

[wilbur81]

51 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

Don't make me flick peanuts at you.

"What are looking AT!! HUH!?!"

[BuzzU]

4 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

"What are looking AT!! HUH!?!"

He quoted me. That should explain it.

[Coxy_99]

On 1/17/2025 at 9:02 AM, BIGNEWY said:

We all want many aircraft in DCS, Redfor and Bluefor, and eventually I am sure lots of our wishes will be granted. It is just a matter of time. 

I get there is lots of passionate people here in our community, but please remember we are all human, and enjoy the same hobby, be nice to each other and keep the feedback constructive. 

thank you 

I dont think its the fact theres an F-35 coming to DCS thats clearly not the issue, The issue is for years ED, wags and others state to make a module as close to its counter part as possible is the eagle dynamics standard for years, This includes not just public information but SME's to ground crew and other bits and bobs. What would re assure your customers is a video Q&A on where what how and why, Instead of the usual, Community questions like when is ATC coming? When is world map coming? None cares they want to hear about how you guys obtained an F-35 contract to make a public module. And what data you actually intend to use thats more efficient to put minds at rest, Becasue it feels and looks like a back track on what eagle dynamics is really all about.  

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Coxy_99 said:

I dont think its the fact theres an F-35 coming to DCS thats clearly not the issue, The issue is for years ED, wags and others state to make a module as close to its counter part as possible is the eagle dynamics standard for years, This includes not just public information but SME's to ground crew and other bits and bobs. What would re assure your customers is a video Q&A on where what how and why, Instead of the usual, Community questions like when is ATC coming? When is world map coming? None cares they want to hear about how you guys obtained an F-35 contract to make a public module. And what data you actually intend to use thats more efficient to put minds at rest, Becasue it feels and looks like a back track on what eagle dynamics is really all about.  

You can clearly see we are working, our change logs show that work, but some things do take longer. We have to work with the resources we have. 

I hope you still enjoy DCS, even with the tings you might find an issue, I know thousands of people are enjoying the work we are doing already. We will continue to fix issues, continue to bring out new content and continue to grow as a company, the F-35A is part of that growth and I hope in the years to come the long term plans will become obvious to you all. 

best regards

bignewy 

[Weasel]

Indiafoxtecho just released an (interesting) official statement on Facebook for the DCS F-35 modul as they are not involved in this modul:

Zitat

NOTE ON DCS:F-35 - WE ARE NOT INVOLVED!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After the surprise announcement of the DCS:F-35 we have received several messages asking if we were involved in the development.
The answer is NO: WE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, although years ago we had, of course, discussed to port our MSFS F-35 to DCS.

Frankly, to make this a realistic F-35 simulation, it is totally understandable that ED decided to develop this on their own as "first party" official module, as there are a number of changes/improvements to the simulation core needed to make it work.

However, we have seen a lot of misinformed discussion about the potential "realism" that ED can achieve, as they declared it to be a "full fidelity" module and we'd like to clarify that we believe they can do an EXCELLENT job in terms of realism: contrary to popular belief, much of the required information on the F-35 air vehicle is publicly available (e.g. academic papers) and there are dozens of videos of cockpit simulators, showing the avionics and the pilot interface in great detail. 

Moreover, a lot of the official aircraft documentation is APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE or UNCLASSIFIED (although some of the unclassfied documents, like pages of the flight manual, are actually parts of RESTRICTED documents) and can be easily found online.

Long story short, the F-35 is actually better documented than most people think - and it IS better documented than the F-22, and even (to a much lesser extent) than the Eurofighter.

There are, however, some critical areas in the development, such as the actual performance of the radar and the sensors (that is CLASSIFIED) and the actual radar cross section (which can be, to some extent, simulated with commercially available tools such as HF-SS or CST).

So, yes, there will be areas in which ED will have to guesstimate some things - so il will not be (OBVIOUSLY) 100% REAL.
But (spoiler) NO SIMULATION IS 100% REAL.

Can it break the game balance? Definitely YES.
But that is what the F-35 can do in real life too.

 

Edited January 19 by Weasel

[Gary]

2 hours ago, Coxy_99 said:

I dont think its the fact theres an F-35 coming to DCS thats clearly not the issue, The issue is for years ED, wags and others state to make a module as close to its counter part as possible is the eagle dynamics standard for years, This includes not just public information but SME's to ground crew and other bits and bobs. What would re assure your customers is a video Q&A on where what how and why, Instead of the usual, Community questions like when is ATC coming? When is world map coming? None cares they want to hear about how you guys obtained an F-35 contract to make a public module. And what data you actually intend to use thats more efficient to put minds at rest, Becasue it feels and looks like a back track on what eagle dynamics is really all about.  

Please speak for yourself rather than everyone. Whilst the information sources for the F35A might be your number one priority, it most definately in NOT mine.

You suggest no-one cares about the World Map or ATC which I can catogorically say is NOT true. The ATC improvements are my personal  number one priority so please don't speak for me. Everyone will have their own personal priorities and whilst some will surely align with yours, not everyones will.

Regards,

Gary

 

Edited January 19 by Gary