F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[SEEADLER 111]

meaningless movement. You make a module that has no connection with anything in DCS.

[razorseal]

I'm bummed by this decision. I've always seen DCS as study level simming. We've complained about F16/18 and been told there is no data available etc for some stuff. EW has always been a sore subject.

now we're going to introduce the world's most compex, technologically advanced airplane based on youtube videos, trade shows, and air shows with a sprinkle or some pilots about about it on podcasts? We're going from all available official documentation to this?!?! This is so sad.

 

Yeah, people will buy it... I will probably buy it, but this is how we start turning into a community of war thunder. 

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, SEEADLER 111 said:

meaningless movement. You make a module that has no connection with anything in DCS.

 

DCS is a flight simulator. The F-35 is an airplane.

 

Works for me. 

[Oban]

So many real F35 Pilots and SME's in here that ED will be inundated with requests to provide real time, first hand experience of the airframe, this is what I love about the ED Community, there's so many with real cockpit time in Gen 4/5 aircraft that they feel compelled to be total doom and gloom merchants, the amount of duckery in this thread is staggering.

It was a surprise announcement that came today with the release, for me, I'm willing to wait and see what ED delivers on release, since I don't have the same amount of flight time as the detractors and experts here, I'm willing to give ED a chance to see how this pans out.

[SEEADLER 111]

7 minutes ago, Oban said:

So many real F35 Pilots and SME's in here that ED will be inundated with requests to provide real time, first hand experience of the airframe, this is what I love about the ED Community, there's so many with real cockpit time in Gen 4/5 aircraft that they feel compelled to be total doom and gloom merchants, the amount of fuckery in this thread is staggering.

It was a surprise announcement that came today with the release, for me, I'm willing to wait and see what ED delivers on release, since I don't have the same amount of flight time as the detractors and experts here, I'm willing to give ED a chance to see how this pans out.

surely as many as there are FBI agents.And surely many of those pilots are willing to lose their jobs.

Edited January 17 by SEEADLER 111

[MAXsenna]

Did absolutely not anticipate this. Royal Norwegian Air Force becoming more and more complete. Now, give me a Lynx and a Sea King! 

[mmarques]

I am only disappointed in that we're getting an F-35A before an Su-30SM, Red air really needs something more modern to spice things up (and no the MiG-29A isn't it, even though I'm getting it)

[NineLine]

9 minutes ago, SEEADLER 111 said:

surely as many as there are FBI agents.And surely many of those pilots are willing to lose their jobs.

I think you may have missed the sarcasm

[Beirut]

16 minutes ago, Oban said:

So many real F35 Pilots and SME's in here that ED will be inundated with requests to provide real time, first hand experience of the airframe, this is what I love about the ED Community, there's so many with real cockpit time in Gen 4/5 aircraft that they feel compelled to be total doom and gloom merchants, the amount of fuckery in this thread is staggering.

It was a surprise announcement that came today with the release, for me, I'm willing to wait and see what ED delivers on release, since I don't have the same amount of flight time as the detractors and experts here, I'm willing to give ED a chance to see how this pans out.

 

For me it boils down to a few key ingredients: Will it be cool, will it be fun, and will it impart the feeling of flying the real thing?

 

If yes, that's all I need.

[SEEADLER 111]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I think you may have missed the sarcasm

HAAAAAAA, NOW I UNDERSTAND. The launch of ED F-35 is sarcastic.

It doesn't matter, we are free to use it or participate in servers where it is. It is as easy as not doing it.

 

[Krippz]

I'm looking forward to the module. If you don't like it you don't have to buy it. There's a big marketplace of modules to choose from; not every module will be to your liking. 

[Oban]

8 minutes ago, SEEADLER 111 said:

HAAAAAAA, NOW I UNDERSTAND. The launch of ED F-35 is sarcastic.

It doesn't matter, we are free to use it or participate in servers where it is. It is as easy as not doing it.

 

Nope, the sarcasm was everyone with negativity towards this module seems to be acting like Subject Matter Experts, and REAL F35 pilots.

[NineLine]

12 minutes ago, SEEADLER 111 said:

HAAAAAAA, NOW I UNDERSTAND. The launch of ED F-35 is sarcastic.

It doesn't matter, we are free to use it or participate in servers where it is. It is as easy as not doing it.

 

Nope, you still are not quite getting it. Anyways, if you don't want the F-35 it's ok, I think even those who do not buy it will see benefits from this aircraft for years to come. 

[OldFlyer]

My main draw to DCS is that it tries, to the extent that it can, to be a study level simulator and this announcement does seem incongruous with that especially given some of the responses by the CMs over the years to various requests to changes to aircraft (e.g. munition types). Having said that, I think the F35 will be a fun module to fly, and I'll definitely buy it.

My question is - I understand flight dynamics information is hard to get. What about avionics i.e. the large area display, the 'portals' that the pilot operates, the menu systems. Is there available documentation for that or is it a case of stringing together information found on YouTube videos and the like?

Ancillary question - does this open the door to future 'leniency' on modules; for example, given the MiG-29 has been in recent times been using HARM and JDAM-ER can those munitions be added to the Fulcrum? Would present a whole range of additional, fun, mission types to that upcoming module.

[F-2]

1 minute ago, OldFlyer said:

My main draw to DCS is that it tries, to the extent that it can, to be a study level simulator and this announcement does seem incongruous with that especially given some of the responses by the CMs over the years to various requests to changes to aircraft (e.g. munition types). Having said that, I think the F35 will be a fun module to fly, and I'll definitely buy it.

My question is - I understand flight dynamics information is hard to get. What about avionics i.e. the large area display, the 'portals' that the pilot operates, the menu systems. Is there available documentation for that or is it a case of stringing together information found on YouTube videos and the like?

Ancillary question - does this open the door to future 'leniency' on modules; for example, given the MiG-29 has been in recent times been using HARM and JDAM-ER can those munitions be added to the Fulcrum? Would present a whole range of additional, fun, mission types to that upcoming module.

Flight isn’t a huge issue

paper: F-35 Aerodynamic Performance Verification (AIAA 2018-3679)

[NineLine]

5 minutes ago, OldFlyer said:

My main draw to DCS is that it tries, to the extent that it can, to be a study level simulator and this announcement does seem incongruous with that especially given some of the responses by the CMs over the years to various requests to changes to aircraft (e.g. munition types). Having said that, I think the F35 will be a fun module to fly, and I'll definitely buy it.

My question is - I understand flight dynamics information is hard to get. What about avionics i.e. the large area display, the 'portals' that the pilot operates, the menu systems. Is there available documentation for that or is it a case of stringing together information found on YouTube videos and the like?

Ancillary question - does this open the door to future 'leniency' on modules; for example, given the MiG-29 has been in recent times been using HARM and JDAM-ER can those munitions be added to the Fulcrum? Would present a whole range of additional, fun, mission types to that upcoming module.

It will be like anything, and even the responses you allude to from us, some systems we will be able to do well, some we will be able to do ok, some we may not be able to do hardly at all. As we start development we will see where it all comes out, and share this with you all. I need to continue to stress, research on this aircraft has been going for 2+ years. We would not take this step without a reasonable amount of information being available to do this aircraft.

[OldFlyer]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I need to continue to stress, research on this aircraft has been going for 2+ years. We would not take this step without a reasonable amount of information being available to do this aircraft.

Copy that, I hadn't seen that mentioned previously. That's reassuring 

[Paganus]

More choices = good

Good for the customer, good for the company.

It really is as simple as, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Your purchase choice will ring much louder inside the company than any forum rant.

 

[Jester986]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Maybe, but in a game people want to be so realistic it seems weird to demand balance. Especially when you can add and remove planes from any mission. 

I don’t care about balance. DCS should NOT be balanced because the real world isn’t. But I am highly skeptical an accurate version can be made and lowering the standard of what’s required to make module is disappointing. But I’m sure it will be a cash cow for ED. 

[NineLine]

4 minutes ago, Jester986 said:

I don’t care about balance. DCS should NOT be balanced because the real world isn’t. But I am highly skeptical an accurate version can be made and lowering the standard of what’s required to make module is disappointing. But I’m sure it will be a cash cow for ED. 

I have seen a number of people concerned about that, and it's fine. But at least give us a chance here, we believe we can do it. We will. 

[F-2]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I have seen a number of people concerned about that, and it's fine. But at least give us a chance here, we believe we can do it. We will. 

I feel the wording in the FAQ as well as a general lack of knowledge about what sort of documentation is used to make a DCS module is the cause of this. 

[KarateCriminal]

I am cautiously optimistic about this module. There is enough out there that an educated guess can easily be made. The general idea of how things work isn't classified. It's the numbers associated with specific systems that are.

[PawlaczGMD]

To be clear, I'm not a hardcore rivet-counter, and I hope that the F-35 will bring a lot of cash to ED so that the game can be developed in the future.

It does however bug me that they have clearly changed their fidelity policy because of the revenue potential of the F-35. Many requested features for existing modules are shot down because there is not enough documentation, or even because the a/c they modelled can carry a particular weapon, but wasn't seen doing it at a particular date.

The widely requested red planes, very needed to balance the "teams" to make DCS more of a combat simulator rather than cockpit or 1V1/airquake simulator, were also rejected because they cannot obtain the necessary documentation.

But now youtube videos of airshows and pilot comments are sufficient to model an aircraft that is by far the most sophisticated and modern in DCS. I just hope quality, or other EA modules and core features, will not be sacrificed for this. And frankly, I don't really buy the argument that this won't detract from core because it's a different team. Assigning devs to teams is a choice, and it's not like some people can only code planes, but not core features.

Prioritizing new EA modules over core features and existing modules screws over players who pay a lot of $$$ based on promises that are frequently delayed or never materialize.

[tora117]

I'm trying not to be a negative nancy but I'm sure myself and others are frustrated mostly because we are skeptical such an endeavor is even possible.

In the spirit of being positive, I am going to assume that such an announcement means we will get massively improved EW and datalink simulation, LOAL-capable AIM-9Xs and 120Ds, and all the other munitions that the F35 carried when it initially entered service.

If so that would be a massive addition to DCS.

I could even be hopeful that one day ED will leave its policy of restricting certain aircraft to a fixed point in time and allow the F16C and other aircraft to carry these new munitions.
An F16C with Hobbit, modern AIM-9Xs and 120s, and especially AESA, would help level the playing field in terms of "balancing".

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, F-2 said:

I feel the wording in the FAQ as well as a general lack of knowledge about what sort of documentation is used to make a DCS module is the cause of this. 

It very well could be, but we never really show all our cards.