F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[HWasp]

The honest way to do this would be to introduce a new "medium fidelity" product line positioned between FC4 and full fid.

Doing the F-35 is fine, just don't try to pretend that it will be on the same level as the A10C or the F-4 is...

[Devil 505]

1 minute ago, sirrah said:

F-35 maintenance crew in my country is pretty much left in the dark on about how everything works in this aircraft. I spoke with a friend of mine early this week (an ex F-16 and later F-35 avionics guy) and he said they were told so little about the F-35, it just wasn't fun anymore to be in maintenance. Lots of maintenance crew leaving our air force because of it. The type course was only 3 weeks  (so.. pretty much nothing was shared..)

 

So, just like many others here, I was extremely surprised and totally confused on why ED suddenly moves from creating study level modules (backed up by declassified documents and SME's) to a "guesstimate" level module.

 

Sure, it's "just" a sim/game in the end, but at least before today, the modules in DCS were based on actual available/declassified data and SME's that could actually share valuable information.

I fear that this new venture by ED (creating modules based on assumptions, videos, some self-developed computed data models and perhaps a few nice ex pilot stories with no in depth classified info whatsoever) potentially moves my beloved DCS in a direction I wish it didn't go.

 

Thank you for being another voice my friend! I hope more people who have been around this aircraft come out and say this is a bad call for ED! 

[Sandman1330]

I'll just re-iterate what I think is my main point, since it may have gotten buried in the personal back and forth.

There's a pretty simple solution to the question of "cheapening" the full fidelity brand. Give this (and others like it) a new tier, new branding. Call it "high fidelity." 

So you'd have FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Each with their own standards of documentation, etc.

• FC4 - As it currently is, simplified systems, non-clickable cockpits.
• High fidelity - Clickable cockpits, deep systems simulation, but understanding many reasonable assumptions / educated guesses were made to fill in gaps in documentation. May not represent the full and true capabilities of the modelled aircraft.
• Full fidelity - As it currently is. High bar for available documentation, top tier standard of realism.

Opening up this new "high fidelity" brand would open the door to a whole new ecosystem of possibilities that we haven't had access to before. It could be very good for DCS, bring in new players, new revenue streams.

[Oban]

28 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

Well I am a real military pilot who works just down the road from and often on the base that's getting these, and who works with the pilots who are going to be flying these.  I'm aware of the security precautions that surround it, so I'm certainly more qualified than you.

You've also heard from an actual crew chief who worked on them and wasn't even given full access, and another military pilot who worked in an adjacent squadron who wasn't even allowed even the most basic information. What more do you need to be convinced?

You're a real Military pilot, thank you for your service, so why do you fly in DCS?

Many people don't use VR, so the sensation of "being inside the aircraft" just isn't there, it's IMPOSSIBLE to replicate on flat screens.... so why bother making a game that can't do that to begin with? Seems a waste of money right?

For those of us that do have VR (recent convert) that sensation of being immersed is there, and mind blowing.....but, you don't get the full motion feeling of winds and turbulance, or the movement over ground when taxing, it's impossible to replicate......again, why bother making a game that can't replicate those sensations to begin with ? Seems a waste of money right? 

Because it's for entertainment purposes only... and ED, and other flight simulations companies customers are the general public, and games are developed for entertainment purposes as there's a market for it...

DCS isn't made for that 5% of hardcore simmers who have their Virtual cockpits in their garages, and wear helmets and flights suits, have $10,000 Motion platforms, have their friends call them by their fighter jock call signs and have cool bumper stickers, it's made for the 95% who just want to go out there and have some fun, fly around cool locations, shoot some shyt down, and then go and put the kids to bed...

Some people are taking this waaaaaay too serious.

[ustio]

3 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

 

Opening up this new "high fidelity" brand would open the door to a whole new ecosystem of possibilities that we haven't had access to before. It could be very good for DCS, bring in new players, new revenue streams.

I dont disagree, but from business stand point, this would sell less if they marketed it as "lower than full fidelity"

[Devil 505]

3 minutes ago, Oban said:

Some people are taking this waaaaaay too serious.

Then why are you waiting on this module to come out if authenticity and realism do not mean much to you?  There is a free F-35 mod out there now for DCS world. Why is that any different from what ED is developing now if standards for DCS world are not applicable. 

Edited January 17 by Devil 505

[Sandman1330]

1 minute ago, Oban said:

DCS isn't made for that 5% of hardcore simmers who have their Virtual cockpits in their garages, and wear helmets and flights suits, have $10,000 Motion platforms, have their friends call them by their fighter jock call signs and have cool bumper stickers, it's made for the 95% who just want to go out there and have some fun, fly around cool locations, shoot some shyt down, and then go and put the kids to bed...

I think I have to disagree on this point. DCS is, was, and has always marketed itself to that playerbase. That's their core playerbase, those of us who have been here since the A10C and Huey were brand new, who came to get the most realistic representation possible. The fun crowd has other options in the market to be frank.

I'm not against opening it up to a wider audience - indeed it's probably necessary to ensure the long term sustainability of the product. But please don't alienate those who came here for what they advertised, and still advertise - top tier high fidelity modules. Again it just comes down to how they market it. I'm not against it, just market it for what it will be - high fidelity, not full fidelity.

3 minutes ago, ustio said:

I dont disagree, but from business stand point, this would sell less if they marketed it as "lower than full fidelity"

And it probably should...

[Oban]

1 minute ago, Devil 505 said:

Then why are you waiting on this module to come out if authenticity and realism do not mean much to you?  There is a free F-35 mod out there now for DCS world. Why is that any different from what ED is developing now if standards for DCS world are not applicable. 

That free mod is a shell slapped on top of another module, and has I believe an SFM...

I'm waiting on this module to see what they can pull off... and if those testers who will inevitably fly it say it's fun, then I will consider buying it...

3 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

who came to get the most realistic representation possible.

That's why we're all here... fun pilots or serious pilots alike...

[Sandman1330]

3 minutes ago, Oban said:

That's why we're all here... fun pilots or serious pilots alike...

Right - But the F35 will not, cannot be anything close to a realistic representation. That's the core of my argument.

[Oban]

1 minute ago, Sandman1330 said:

Right - But the F35 will not, cannot be anything close to a realistic representation. That's the core of my argument.

Your argument like the crew chief's is very valid, but why not wait until the product is actually available and then criticise it, if ED believe thay can bring this to the table, why not support and commend their efforts ?

[Sandman1330]

7 minutes ago, Oban said:

Your argument like the crew chief's is very valid, but why not wait until the product is actually available and then criticise it, if ED believe thay can bring this to the table, why not support and commend their efforts ?

I do actually support and commend the effort. But it's the branding that's off, they can't call it full fidelity.

It'll be awesome - I'll probably even buy it. It will be fun to mess around in. But it won't be to the level of current full fidelity modules, that's an impossible task. I don't need to wait to see what's presented to know it will be heavily based on educated guesses and assumptions, and will not represent the true capability of the aircraft to a reasonably high standard. Yes there are no FF modules that can 100% do this either, but they can get a lot closer.

Wait - they merged this thread with the "this is amazing" thread? I don't really think the two threads were on the same topic... Edit - Ah ok, topic name also changed, fair.

Edited January 17 by Sandman1330

[BIGNEWY]

Threads merged 

Please keep the discussion respectful and treat each other with respect. 

thank you 

[TacoGrease]

2 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

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.

Block IIB, from the FAQ. Which is also interesting because the F-35, to my understanding, wasn’t really up to par until Block 3F.

[Hummingbird]

Well... we're certainly going to be needing some more up to date red aircraft.

SU-35 anyone??

 

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, Supernova-III said:

Could you please elaborate more on that? This guy is from ED I guess. Are you guys on the same page about what is possible and what is not? I'm a bit confused. For me it's rather great news that you're working on F-35. For me it means that you don't need secret data for making an aircraft and it's claimed to be realistic (whatever this mean). Which means that there's actually a lot you can do. For example, Su-25 (it's not classified though), F-18E/D, Su-30/35, and so on.

I am not employed ED,
That being said, for a block I Super Hornet most of the data is available upon request, block II not so much, Here's the caveat, for a normal civilian.

ED has had in the past some form of agreements with Boeing, so limits applied to a normal person requesting data for a sim might not apply.

Another Caveat is the F-35 is exported to ~10 Countries already with another 6 investing in the program.

While the Super Hornet is a 2 Country Pony.

Edited January 17 by SkateZilla

[rfxcasey]

I'll play Devil's advocate. DCS World is ultimately a game and without money, the game dies.

[NineLine]

4 minutes ago, rfxcasey said:

I'll play Devil's advocate. DCS World is ultimately a game and without money, the game dies.

That is also an aspect people leave out. If we did only aircraft we could model 100% 1:1 we would have a very slim line up, and the Ka-50 and A-10C would not exist. 

[toni]

Uhmmmmm.....by when this bird rolls out in DCS, I really expect  NTTR map will be improved/upgrated specially Nellis, and perhaps the map could be expanded to the west, Fallon, Edwards, Miramar, el Centro,Leemore ?

[metzger]

24 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That is also an aspect people leave out. If we did only aircraft we could model 100% 1:1 we would have a very slim line up, and the Ka-50 and A-10C would not exist. 

NL, Why you exaggerate like that ? No body here expects and speaks about 1:1 100%. Do you honestly believe that F-35 will come even close to A-10C level of accuracy of simulation ?

But I personally don't care much about how good f-35 will be. In the current state of the DCS playground as whole, any rumors for more EA modules is just meh..

On the positive side, the video showed a lot of DC and ground battle, so there is hope after all.  If before anything else DC comes in good working state and brings a decent AI improvements, then ED can release x-wing starfighter if they want in closed alpha state . 

Edited January 17 by metzger

[sirrah]

10 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That is also an aspect people leave out. If we did only aircraft we could model 100% 1:1 we would have a very slim line up, and the Ka-50 and A-10C would not exist. 

C'mon Nineline, nobody's expecting 100% 1:1 modules. The concerns expressed in this thread, are that this F-35 will be like >90% made up.

I don't think it's fair to just do as if all existing DCS modules are similarly "made up" purely from videos and assumptions.

This is a unique move ED is making here with DCS. Is it truly so strange that some dedicated community members have some concerns? Please don't just put us away as negative nay sayers.. we just care for DCS

[Pilotasso]

F-35 in DCS...wait...whaaaat? 

[MiGCap1]

21 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That is also an aspect people leave out. If we did only aircraft we could model 100% 1:1 we would have a very slim line up, and the Ka-50 and A-10C would not exist. 

I think most of the people here would be glad with around 80 per cent.

But a cripple module with max 35 per cent reality destroys the high credibility of DCS. (See my other post.)

If that's worth the additional money for You ... Your choice, of course.

[LordOrion]

20 hours ago, TheSkipjack95 said:

You cannot expect us to buy that "open source" documentation and looking over a dude's shoulder at a trade show constitutes enough to make a FF module of one of the newest frontline jets.

This is absurd. Credibility shattering even.

We moaned about the paper plane J8, but this......

10 years of flying DCS and this is what it's becoming. Okay then.

ED don't "expect" anything, they just think that as much as possibile of us will like their implmentation of the F-35 and buy it.

No one is pointing a gun at our head, if you don't like the F-35 just don't buy it, there is no need to whining about "10 years of something...".

Edited January 17 by LordOrion

[Viking 1-1]

1 hour ago, Sandman1330 said:

I'll just re-iterate what I think is my main point, since it may have gotten buried in the personal back and forth.

There's a pretty simple solution to the question of "cheapening" the full fidelity brand. Give this (and others like it) a new tier, new branding. Call it "high fidelity." 

So you'd have FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Each with their own standards of documentation, etc.

• FC4 - As it currently is, simplified systems, non-clickable cockpits.
• High fidelity - Clickable cockpits, deep systems simulation, but understanding many reasonable assumptions / educated guesses were made to fill in gaps in documentation. May not represent the full and true capabilities of the modelled aircraft.
• Full fidelity - As it currently is. High bar for available documentation, top tier standard of realism.

Opening up this new "high fidelity" brand would open the door to a whole new ecosystem of possibilities that we haven't had access to before. It could be very good for DCS, bring in new players, new revenue streams.

This, indeed, is a very good idea!

[I_Gamer]

2 hours ago, Canada_Moose said:

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?

Ding, ding, we have a winner!

I’d love for a ED / E19 collab on the 35. We have a ton of high quality resources already, why not use them? The on-release Hornet and Viper sounds were less than ideal, and also synthesized in some ways. How about just pushing the boundaries in all aspects of this module, not just what’s possible with systems and flight model. Most of the community prefers our take on the audio anyway, would be a cool concept if we could work our magic together with ED.

The big difference here is that Boeing is not Lockheed Martin. LM are very strict, speaking from personal experience, and I HIGHLY DOUBT ED are working with them on the project, that would be a massive conflict of interest for LM. 

Boeing will “work” with anyone, for extreme amounts of money. Also speaking from experience.