F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[Hunter2.1]

11 hours 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.

Maybe you have classified documents but you can’t say it on public. 
Okay, we wait, but I write with pencil that you are one step closer to be second war_thunder 

[Николай Ушаков]

22 минуты назад, Devil 505 сказал:

@NineLine How can you possibly say no to this request now that you are doing the F-35? This is what I am talking about. 0 chance in hell you have more open source documentation to build the F-35 than you would a Su-30 or Su-35.  Your community have been screaming for these for years but the response was not enough information and no authority, it would never happen.  How have you obtained the authority from Lockheed Martin and enough information on a plane more classified than Bidens bank account, but you cant do the same thing for these other aircraft? 

Based

[J3ST3R]

15 hours ago, Semaphore said:

Yep... think ED are going against their own principles of only producing 100% accurate modules because there is absolutley no way they have all the matereial to create the F35A accurately.... 

100% this! Completely agree! 

[falcon_120]

Im looking forward to the f35, in the same manner i would kill for a full fidelity su30 mki, mkk, j15, j10c, mig29k... whatever would add some options for team red.

In the end im an aviation nerd that would love to see any modern and past fighter replicated to the best degree publicly available , even if that means leaving some room(only a bit) for guesstimation.
I know im not the only one on that group and i guess that's what have driven ED decision to go ahead with the F35.

What wouldn't like to fly this beauty?

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Chinooklad]

Let's forget essentially all of the onboard systems, especially of the EW kind which you will never be able to model accurately or even remotely accurately, no matter what you try to make us believe...what about sound design? Are you telling us someone will let you near an F35 with a sound recording team? Can you just borrow an F35 from Yanks or one of the allies for a few days to record the engine sounds, onboard warnings etc? Or perhaps you'll be standing outside an airfield and hope that an F35 overflies you and record the sounds that way? The more you put your bizzare decision under some scrutiny, the less sense it makes in the context of the 'fidelity standard' you seemed to have preached about so much all these years. Can't make this, can't make that, but we will somehow make a full fidelity 5th gen aircraft...Sure.

[J3ST3R]

13 hours ago, NineLine said:

Using the same examples, the SH and the MH-60, the reason is we are still finishing the Charlie, so starting a SH doesn't make sense in that regards. As for the MH-60, our helo teams are simply tied up with current work right now. 

A FF Su-27 is possible, but the team that would do that most likely would be the one nose deep in a MiG-29 right now. 

@NineLine, you better have a word with Wags about that lol

[Chinooklad]

Additionaly, as others have said, the statement you're making about 'Not sharing all that you have available' makes you appear extremely suspect. And that's putting it mildly. Do you have access to classified documentation pertaining the F35? Because that's a perfect way to end up with a visit from the FBI and other relevant counter-intelligence agencies. I thought Wags made it clear that ED will never go down that route. It's very silly to claim that you could make a module up to the apparent 'DCS Standard' without commiting a felony, at present time. Perhaps in 90 years, it would be a different conversation.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, Николай Ушаков said:

Both are problems
Content and multiplayer are gonna be in trouble too with this: You must be really delusional if don't see this.

And besides we can say fidelity or any idea of realism goodbye if we will see a module based on guesswork.

Again, 'balance' is up to the mission makers. The reality is that, frequently, conflict isn't. If balance is in the cards for a mission? Then they won't add the F-35. Simple as.

Also, I wouldn't call it largely guess work, at least for the FM and power output. When we get to the brains of it, though? We could really use a white paper.

[ustio]

 

10 minutes ago, J3ST3R said:

100% this! Completely agree! 

guess moving forward DCS will be more oriented towards a Game rather than a simulator than before whether we like it or not.

[Canada_Moose]

13 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

Additionaly, as others have said, the statement you're making about 'Not sharing all that you have available' makes you appear extremely suspect. And that's putting it mildly. Do you have access to classified documentation pertaining the F35? Because that's a perfect way to end up with a visit from the FBI and other relevant counter-intelligence agencies. I thought Wags made it clear that ED will never go down that route. It's very silly to claim that you could make a module up to the apparent 'DCS Standard' without commiting a felony, at present time. Perhaps in 90 years, it would be a different conversation.

Lol, like that is any of your business. They know what they are doing from a legal perspective. Do you really believe that they would risk anything of that magnitude?

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Canada_Moose

[Chinooklad]

4 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

Lol, like that is any of your business. They know what they are doing from a legal perspective. Do you really believe that they would risk anything of that magnitude?

 

They're risking it right now. It's funny to me that they respect the authorhity of Russian government on the matter but poking into the American stuff is fine apparently. 

[Canada_Moose]

5 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

They're risking it right now. It's funny to me that they respect the authorhity of Russian government on the matter but poking into the American stuff is fine apparently. 

They aren't risking anything. This has been discussed for over 2 years internally. They have their reasons. Armchair lawyers not required.

if you are right, the FBI will be lining up a raid forthwith and DCS / ED will be out of business. What time frame would you like to put on it? I'm willing to make that bet with you that nothing happens because ED have already done diligence on this.

Perhaps the FBI are coming for IndiaFoxtEcho too?

Edited 17 hours ago by Canada_Moose

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

12 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Now, give me a Lynx and a Sea King!

Especially the Lynx please. I'll never get over the feeling of how comfortable it is (IRL), after I had the chance to sit in one. Dimensionally and proportionally it almost seemed like it was tailor-made for me.
A DCS FF Lynx would be an absolute dream! 

And yes to Sea King too so I can roleplay and make missions from the TV-series from the '90s!

[Chinooklad]

10 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

They aren't risking anything. This has been discussed for over 2 years internally. They have their reasons. Armchair lawyers not required.

if you are right, the FBI will be lining up a raid forthwith and DCS / ED will be out of business. What time frame would you like to put on it? I'm willing to make that bet with you that nothing happens because ED have already done diligence on this.

Perhaps the FBI are coming for IndiaFoxtEcho too?

Oh sorry, I didn't know that Echo19 had ties to Russia. Oh wait..The hypocricy of comparing the degree of modeling in average MSFS module to what would have to be achieved in DCS is astounding. I'm not saying F35 can't be included in any other games, it certainly has over the years. The issues presents itself when the full fidelity standard is added into the mix, which is simply not possible. The sooner ED admits it, the better.

[MAXsenna]

2 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

Oh sorry, I didn't know that Echo19 had ties to Russia.

What do you mean? IndiaFoxtEcho is Italian ≠ Echo19. 

[Hammer1-1]

Id really like to know what block they are intending to build, because the current iteration of the F-35 series is a tech demonstrator for the most part. What about its stealth capabilities? Helmet mounted optical sensors that can see through the airframe? AESA radar? I really do find it weird that they would pick this aircraft after that F-18E/F were turned down solely because of classification of the secret sauce and the AESA. I worked on the F-18 Blk 3 for a while and I never could see the full aircraft without a security clearance or escorts.

[Chinooklad]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

What do you mean? IndiaFoxtEcho is Italian ≠ Echo19. 

It's sarcasm. My initial point, as you can see earlier in the thread, was about how the sounds are going to be captured. Echo19 did indeed have a recording session of a running F35. The IFE's module uses the sounds recorded by Echo 19, which is an American company and has no ties to Russia, unlike ED.

[Canada_Moose]

5 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

Oh sorry, I didn't know that Echo19 had ties to Russia. Oh wait..The hypocricy of comparing the degree of modeling in average MSFS module to what would have to be achieved in DCS is astounding. I'm not saying F35 can't be included in any other games, it certainly has over the years. The issues presents itself when the full fidelity standard is added into the mix, which is simply not possible. The sooner ED admits it, the better.

So not taking that bet then? Let me know when the FBI show up at the ED office as you seem to know more than the rest of us.

[dmatt76]

There could be other factor in all of this. It is possible that ED got a contract to develop F-35 sim for some military user, especially with so many new countries buying F-35, like earlier with A-10C II, and - possibly - Chinook. The DCS version could be similiar to A-10C - just dumbed down with stuff which is allowed / already known to show in a commercial product. 

Edited 16 hours ago by dmatt76

[Canada_Moose]

2 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

It's sarcasm. My initial point, as you can see earlier in the thread, was about how the sounds are going to be captured. Echo19 did indeed have a recording session of a running F35. The IFE's module uses the sounds recorded by Echo 19, which is an American company and has no ties to Russia, unlike ED.

Hornet, A10 - they got the actual sounds. Boeing even helped with the Hornet. They clearly have all the permissions and project plan lined up. Why don't you just do them a favour and let them show what they can do?

1 minute ago, dmatt76 said:

There could be other factor in all of this. It is possible that ED got a contract to develop F-35 sim for some military user, especially with so many new countries buying F-35, like earlier with A-10C II, and - possibly - Chinook. The DCS version could be similiar to A-10C - just dumbed down with stuff which is allowed / already known to show in a commercial product. 

Ding, ding, we have a winner!

[MAXsenna]

It's sarcasm. My initial point, as you can see earlier in the thread, was about how the sounds are going to be captured. Echo19 did indeed have a recording session of a running F35. The IFE's module uses the sounds recorded by Echo 19, which is an American company and has no ties to Russia, unlike ED.

Ahhh! Yeah, I remember that post.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Canada_Moose]

54 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

Let's forget essentially all of the onboard systems, especially of the EW kind which you will never be able to model accurately or even remotely accurately, no matter what you try to make us believe...what about sound design? Are you telling us someone will let you near an F35 with a sound recording team? Can you just borrow an F35 from Yanks or one of the allies for a few days to record the engine sounds, onboard warnings etc? Or perhaps you'll be standing outside an airfield and hope that an F35 overflies you and record the sounds that way? The more you put your bizzare decision under some scrutiny, the less sense it makes in the context of the 'fidelity standard' you seemed to have preached about so much all these years. Can't make this, can't make that, but we will somehow make a full fidelity 5th gen aircraft...Sure.

Electronic Warfare is barely modelled in DCS now. They will just make the RCS of the F35 smaller in the game.

Bottom line, if you dont like it or its not modelled to your liking, don't buy it. Its that simple.

Man, I remember it was much easier when we had vector graphics and playing F19, Falcon or Fighter Bomber on the Amiga. You got what you got and you were happy. Now its just a bunch of moaners and armchair 'experts' and 'lawyers'

Edited 16 hours ago by Canada_Moose

[Viking 1-1]

It's funny how people already complain that this will not be properly done.

Without anything seen right now, the whining is unbelievable.

And yes, there are more blue jets than red jets.

But DCS is a simulator, not a balanced multiplayer shooter. Deal with it.

I'm looking forward to this one. Very welcome surprise ED delivered. At least for me.

[Oban]

Does anyone have a baily bridge unit so we can make a bridge over the river of tears that are flowing in this thread.

ED should feel honoured there's so many real F35 pilots in here who can point them in the right direction.

[84-Simba]

So the F-35 is not suitable because you can't believe its characteristics will be right.

Ok.

But you have no problem with WWII and early Cold War planes.

It will hurt some egos but DCS ... is a game. Always been, always will be.