F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[Beirut]

It's like some people think they will be taking the plane to war and any imperfections will lead to the demise of The Empire itself.

 

It's flightsim. Just have fun and have a nice flight. Maybe enjoy a tasty beverage while you're at it. 

 

I plan on enjoying the F-35 very much. 

[Oban]

DCS community is without a shadow of a doubt the most toxic one I've encountered in my 62 years alive...

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time..

Ragging on word play seems to be a favourite passtime here..

I just don't get it, if you're upset fine, but for the love of God, why not wait and see what DCS can do first... Never in my life have I read so much toxic nagativity over soemthing that hasn't even been made yet...

 

[Hammer1-1]

35 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

To confirm my opinion that I’m looking forward to this I asked myself as a C172 pilot that’s earmarked for an upgrade to a C182 if I thought this was a good choice for a DCS module.

I said that it was a good choice because I will never get to fly one in real life and it would be great to have a sim of one that is as good as ED can make it. Thank you. 

 

I flew a C172 once a bunch of times

[Beirut]

Just now, Oban said:

DCS community is without a shadow of a doubt the most toxic one I've encountered in my 62 years alive...

 

Nerds be dat way. 

[Hammer1-1]

1 minute ago, Beirut said:

 

Nerds be dat way. 

he aint wrong though...and I thought the BMS community was uptight.

[pimp]

Being apart of this community, it's actually embarrassing reading most of these posts. It's unbelievable people actually clicked submit on a lot of these. All these know-it-alls need to startup their own flight sim company.

[Cyborg71]

I look forward to the best version of an F35 that can be made. 

I don't expect to see it on the suggested time scale, but I'm happy to trust that it will be of high quality.

[Bikerguy302000]

20 minutes ago, Oban said:

DCS community is without a shadow of a doubt the most toxic one I've encountered in my 62 years alive...

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time..

Ragging on word play seems to be a favourite passtime here..

I just don't get it, if you're upset fine, but for the love of God, why not wait and see what DCS can do first... Never in my life have I read so much toxic nagativity over soemthing that hasn't even been made yet...

 

Oh you have seen bike forums when Ducati painted a 998 green in 2004, the fallout was epic.  

[Cyborg71]

8 minutes ago, pimp said:

Being apart of this community, it's actually embarrassing reading most of these posts. It's unbelievable people actually clicked submit on a lot of these. All these know-it-alls need to startup their own flight sim company.

Many years ago I was advised that (when emotional) write down what you feelings are in the form of a complaint. As angry, petulant, and insulting as you want.

Then throw it in the waste. 

[pimp]

7 minutes ago, Cyborg71 said:

I look forward to the best version of an F35 that can be made. 

I don't expect to see it on the suggested time scale, but I'm happy to trust that it will be of high quality.

^^ This should've been the last post in this thread. I agree with every word. Why cant we all think this way?

[Beirut]

7 minutes ago, pimp said:

^^ This should've been the last post in this thread. I agree with every word. Why cant we all think this way?

 

Lacks the requisite drama. 

[Mogster]

I find myself wondering if ED have a desktop sim contract with one of the F35 users, or have had enquiries in that direction.

Whatever, this has caused a stir unlike any recent announcement. Im sure it’ll sell in  droves. A B variant for some QE carrier and SPEAR3 action would be nice at some point.

[Gierasimov]

F-35C would be a nice addition, maybe one day...

[Sandman1330]

1 hour ago, Oban said:

DCS community is without a shadow of a doubt the most toxic one I've encountered in my 62 years alive...

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time..

Ragging on word play seems to be a favourite passtime here..

I just don't get it, if you're upset fine, but for the love of God, why not wait and see what DCS can do first... Never in my life have I read so much toxic nagativity over soemthing that hasn't even been made yet...

 

Actually I think for the most part this thread has been fairly civil. If you think this is toxic, you haven't been around long enough 

Different people play DCS for different reasons. Some play it for the level of realism it provides, while to others that's less important.

To those for whom realism matters, this signals a shift away from the reason they play in the first place. This explains the passion, and they (we) have a right to express our concerns. Some may think it's whiny, and others may think those who don't value realism are just fanboys, air quakers, whatever. But in the end we have to remember that we have to respect the reasons others play, even if it doesn't align with our own. 

Let's not devolve to calling each other whiny (wasn't you) and/or toxic. Respect our right to voice disagreement with the direction the company is taking the game, and we will respect your right to play differently than us.

 

Edited January 17 by Sandman1330

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

whatever. But in the end we have to remember that we have to respect the reasons others play, even if it doesn't align with our own. 

Doesn't respecting the decision ED have made to go down this road not work in the same way though?

Why not wait and see what gets produced, rather than bash it on day one of it going public ?

Believe me, if I thought a product wasn't good, I'd say so, the Iraq map overlall for example is pretty good, but having spent 18 years there from 2004-2022, I was very dissapointed at how Baghdad, where I spent a lot of time wasn't that accurate, apart from some key locations, but that hasn't stopped me from using it, as I'm sure it will get better over time..

I'm always willing to give ED the benefit of the doubt, and this module is no different.

[freehand]

Using the word passion is not an excuse for bad manners & insulting developers.

[rfxcasey]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

Probably not a flyable Su-57, but I see the Redfor side looking brighter all the time. 

Yeah well, I was half kidding but I think they get the point.

[Sandman1330]

9 minutes ago, freehand said:

Using the word passion is not an excuse for bad manners & insulting developers.

Who did so though?

12 minutes ago, Oban said:

Doesn't respecting the decision ED have made to go down this road not work in the same way though?

Why not wait and see what gets produced, rather than bash it on day one of it going public ?

Believe me, if I thought a product wasn't good, I'd say so, the Iraq map overlall for example is pretty good, but having spent 18 years there from 2004-2022, I was very dissapointed at how Baghdad, where I spent a lot of time wasn't that accurate, apart from some key locations, but that hasn't stopped me from using it, as I'm sure it will get better over time..

I'm always willing to give ED the benefit of the doubt, and this module is no different.

Disagreement doesn't equate to disloyalty. The vast majority of those disagreeing on this thread have done so respectfully. In fact, I think more disrespect and toxicity was just thrown by the "agreeing" side in the last page than has been thrown by the "disagreeing" side.

[Oban]

2 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

Who did so though?

You did...

"To those for whom realism matters, this signals a shift away from the reason they play in the first place. This explains the passion, and they (we) have a right to express our concerns. Some may think it's whiny, and others may think those who don't value realism are just fanboys, air quakers, whatever. But in the end we have to remember that we have to respect the reasons others play, even if it doesn't align with our own" 

And this cuts both ways, people have to respect the way ED does their business, and the roads they take to achieve this...

Edited January 17 by Oban

[Sandman1330]

2 minutes ago, Oban said:

You did...

"To those for whom realism matters, this signals a shift away from the reason they play in the first place. This explains the passion, and they (we) have a right to express our concerns. Some may think it's whiny, and others may think those who don't value realism are just fanboys, air quakers, whatever. But in the end we have to remember that we have to respect the reasons others play, even if it doesn't align with our own" 

You feel this is disrespectful? Seriously? Nothing disrespectful to anyone here.

 

I am literally saying here that it's OK to disagree, but to do so respectfully.

Edited January 17 by Sandman1330

[BarTzi]

2 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

You feel this is disrespectful? Seriously? Nothing disrespectful to anyone here.

 

I am literally saying here that it's OK to disagree, but to do so respectfully.

Yeah, all the while being disrespectful himself:

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.

[Oban]

1 minute ago, Sandman1330 said:

You feel this is disrespectful? Seriously? Nothing disrespectful to anyone here.

 

I am literally saying here that it's OK to disagree, but to do so respectfully.

Nah, not at all, but read back  through the past 16 pages,  there's a lot of disrespect aimed towards ED, you may see it as constructive crticism, others may see it as disrespect, word play.

If ED say they can do this, why not let them prove it, if the module crashes and burns, and sales are less than projected, then 100% they need to take it on the chin.

There's some here who have written this module off, even before a screenshot has been released... I'm willing to bet however, this is going to prove to be a very popular module... I will happily eat my words if it's not, and a pile of dogshyt.

4 minutes ago, BarTzi said:

Yeah, all the while being disrespectful himself:

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.

You do understand saracsm right?

 

[NineLine]

Guys, I am trying to keep this open for discussion, but if it's just gonna turn into a fight, I will close it. Please be nice to each other. And if you do not want the F-35 or think we can't do it, then you just need to wait to see as the product develops. Thanks.

[Mike Force Team]

@NineLine Go ahead and close the thread. Nonsense comments lately.

[ThePops]

Fidelity - schmidelity. The two best words I have read in this thread  

My $0.02 on this is that DCS is an illusion. All simulators are illusions, because that's the main purpose of making a sim, at least flight sims. The illusion of flight. The illusion of operating advanced war machines in a contested battlefield. Even professional moving platform simulators are illusions. They go far to make this illusion as believable as possible. The are still just illusions, it all happens in your head (and inside a computer). Nothing happens for real. 

From what I read, what's "wrong" with the F-35 in DCS is:

• It's out of place with no adversary
• It's not likely to be accurate enough (whatever that actually means) because there's no available accurate data
• It will put an imbalance to the playing field
• Lots of people simply don't want it.
• It draws recourses away from more important tasks.
• And so on and so forth

The only true and correct point is the first point. As of today it has no adversary to speak of in real life either. I don't see why this should matter. This is how the real world is. It's not like a balances game of chess. Besides, the first point only matters if you look at DCS as not an illusion, but as a game. By that time you have thrown all illusions of accuracy and fidelity out the window in any case. You might as well play any fantasy space war sim if game play is what's important.

As to why, I think this is the most obvious of all. The F-35 will sell like hot cakes and bring lots of new customers. The only question remaining is: Will ED pull it off and create a believable illusion with the F-35 module that's comparable to the illusions called for instance F-16 and F-18? There's no doubt in my mind they are capable of doing exactly that. Will they succeed in doing that? Only time will tell, but I will give them a 99.9 % probability  

As for myself, I would have the F-104, Draken, F-100 and even the C-130 before the F-35. But I am obviously not the main audience of ED.

I do see one problem here though, and that is with 3rd party developers. Is the playing field level between third party developers and ED regarding documentation for modules? Perhaps, perhaps not. If there's one standard for 3rd party developers, but a more subjective and changing standard for ED themselves, this is very far from good in the long run. Obviously I have no inside knowledge of any of this, but from the outside it certainly looks like this is the case right now. Objectively speaking there's no way the same level of accurate and detailed information can be obtained for the F-35 as for the F-104 for instance. That is not even up for discussion.