F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[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.

[_Spad_]

Ambitious project. Given the classified nature of the aircraft, I'm curious to see what we'll get.

[Zius]

From the F-35 FAQ:

Quote

what it is to operate this aircraft in the context of a study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment market. 

From Home > Products > Digital Combat Simulator World:

Quote

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft

There is a discrepancy here, namely between "study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment" and "most authentic and realistic simulation".

The first sounds like an arcade game, since "study-level" could mean different things, but "game" and "entertainment" are pretty clear words.

The second sounds like hardcore simulation, which is what DCS was and what I am here for.

 

So in my opinion, DCS is making a huge mistake here. And it's not a matter of "if you don't like it, then don't buy it" either. Introducing stuff which *has* for a large part depend on educated guesses, goes against the philopsophy of DCS and cheapens the entire product.

[NineLine]

9 minutes ago, ThePops said:

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.

Well, some of those are coming via 3rd Party, and on top of all I have said previously already, DCS does need to grow and expand into the future eventually. Cold War is fun, WWII is my favorite, but newer aircraft when the opportunity is there must be grabbed, even if we only get AI equals at first. It's progress. Everything you said is pretty much spot on. 

As for documentation, if someone were to come to us with what we have on the F-35 before we decided to do it, they would have most likely been given the opportunity, there was already an attempt a while back, as well as a mod. So it's not like it's never been looked at before. The only thing I will say is that we are knocking down a barrier, where we can add better support for the level of aircraft that will only benefit the ability to add others and have an environment more suitable for them.

4 minutes ago, Zius said:

Introducing stuff which *has* for a large part depend on educated guesses

As we said, it is not. The only guess involved is everyone guessing this is all we can do. 

[nessuno0505]

19 ore fa, Wawar ha scritto:

The question is whether the DCS standard has been lowered

 

19 ore fa, NineLine ha scritto:

standards can be different between aircraft

 

19 ore fa, Wawar ha scritto:

So, if the said « standard » can varies between aircraft, it doesn’t really exist

 

19 ore fa, NineLine ha scritto:

the standards are still the same, but what is achievable could vary

Since a long time DCS standards has been lowered. When we had only ka-50 and a-10c standards were higher. Now we have tons of modules, with only a very small numbers of them reaching the fidelity, complexity and minutiae richness of the former two. Nowadays quantity is preferred over quality. It is a development choice, it has nothing wrong in itself. It's all about if we like it or not.

[The Gryphon]

Day one purchase for me. The F-35 is one of my favourite aircraft of all time.

Edited 7 hours ago by The Gryphon

[nessuno0505]

9 minuti fa, Zius ha scritto:

There is a discrepancy here, namely between "study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment" and "most authentic and realistic simulation".

It's all about the word "game": most authentic and realistic simulation game. And suddently all makes sense.

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

 

 

 

Since a long time DCS standards has been lowered. When we had only ka-50 and a-10c standards were higher. Now we have tons of modules, with only a very small numbers of them reaching the fidelity, complexity and minutiae richness of the former two. Nowadays quantity is preferred over quality. It is a development choice, it has nothing wrong in itself. It's all about if we like it or not.

That is not true, we were allowed much more access for the Ka-50 and A-10C for reasons, we do not always get those accesses, so we still do each and every aircraft to the highest degree possible, as we will do with the F-35, and I will say it will be the most accurate F-35 available. The A-10C is a great example, its not 100% accurate, even with the II version. Nothing modern military will ever be, its just the way it is. But we would not do the F-35 unless we felt we could do it justice in DCS. But here I am again saying the same things to the same comments. I don't know how much more I can give without just saying read the FAQ and follow the development. 

[Mike Busutil]

2 hours ago, BarTzi said:

The reason why is that they base their modules on real documentation. Do you see the problem with the F35 now? They have not, and will never acquire said information. It will be a clickable FC4 level aircraft at best. This is great, but let us know ahead of time please, and not two years into the future in a hidden youtube comment by Wags.

And you will never know if its 2% accurate, 73% accurate, 87.63% accurate or 100% accurate with your keyboard, mouse, eBay joystick and lack of real world experience. 

[Zius]

11 minutes ago, ThePops said:

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.

That is a rather broad and simplistic way of looking at things.

Simulators (including commercially available simulators) have clearly proven their worth in training of real pilots by now. Key to that is realism, which is never 100% but which certainly can be good enough to be valuable.

Entertainment is something else completely and has nothing to do with realism, but only with having fun.

 

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

As we said, it is not.

Sorry but I do have difficulty believing that without evidence.

Where on the other hand I don't feel the need for evidence of the inner workings of the F-5 or L-39.

[John Day]

While I am not against the F-35A, I would have preferred if ED spent that development time on other aircraft that I feel would benefit the community more. Aircraft such as Blackhawk/Seahawk, Sepecat Jaguar, F-111, F-105, SU-27, Westland Lynx, Sikorski Seaking, EA-6B. Any one of these aircraft would add more value and playability to both current and future DCS maps.

[NineLine]

4 minutes ago, John Day said:

While I am not against the F-35A, I would have preferred if ED spent that development time on other aircraft that I feel would benefit the community more. Aircraft such as Blackhawk/Seahawk, Sepecat Jaguar, F-111, F-105, SU-27, Westland Lynx, Sikorski Seaking, EA-6B. Any one of these aircraft would add more value and playability to both current and future DCS maps.

We have more teams now, but they are, for the most part, more specialized. So Another Helicopter would just not be right now as we have a number of them still ongoing. An export Su-27 is possible or other Ru aircraft but focus is on the MiG-29. A Super Hornet will have to wait till after the C is done, etc. 

Add to that as I said above, DCS needs to move into the future, and the F-35 for the most part has generated a lot of excitement, and so it should. 

[nessuno0505]

18 minuti fa, NineLine ha scritto:

we were allowed much more access for the Ka-50 and A-10C, we do not always get those accesses

but nevertheless we decide to develop those airframes, even with less access.

So the standard is lower.

Maybe it's just semantics, and I'm not saying the choice is wrong. It's a choice.

But I still prefer a-10c and ka-50.

Edited 7 hours ago by nessuno0505

[John Day]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

We have more teams now, but they are, for the most part, more specialized. So Another Helicopter would just not be right now as we have a number of them still ongoing. An export Su-27 is possible or other Ru aircraft but focus is on the MiG-29. A Super Hornet will have to wait till after the C is done, etc. 

Add to that as I said above, DCS needs to move into the future, and the F-35 for the most part has generated a lot of excitement, and so it should. 

Thank you for your reply, I totally understand what you mean by helicopter overload right after the release of the Chinook and Kiowa, however, I do feel that a Seahawk/Seaking are needed in the future to round out the carrier aviation experience.

The possibility of an export SU-27 is pleasing to hear as FF REDFOR is lagging somewhat, but again, I understand that the Mig 29 takes priority.

You mentioned more teams and teams that are specialised in certain areas, I wonder if you could tell me if there is a team for AI Aircraft and whether there are any plans to add AI Aircraft that are not currently represented in game ?

[Canada_Moose]

18 minutes ago, Zius said:

Sorry but I do have difficulty believing that without evidence

ED are making a flight simulator not defending a criminal charge in court. 

Honestly the self importance in here is off the charts. 

[MAXsenna]

5 minutes ago, John Day said:

Thank you for your reply, I totally understand what you mean by helicopter overload right after the release of the Chinook and Kiowa, however, I do feel that a Seahawk/Seaking are needed in the future to round out the carrier aviation experience.

He was talking about busy ED helicopter teams, and "recent" releases. Apache, Hind and Chinook. As you know Kiowa is not from ED. 

I would also love to see those you mention, and more... 

Cheers! 

[NineLine]

10 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

but nevertheless we decide to develop those airframes, even with less access.

So the standard is lower.

Maybe it's just semantics, and I'm not saying the choice is wrong. It's a choice.

But I still prefer a-10c and ka-50.

So we should have stopped at the Ka-50 and A-10C? That sounds like a great business plan. 

The standard is making the most realistic flight simulation of a specific aircraft possible. That has not changed. You can read that how you like, but its a standard we carry with every module. 

[Huilque151]

Leyendo los comentarios, desde mi opinion personal creo que se debe aumentar la diversidad de REDFORCE de 3 y 4 ta gen antes de pensar en REDFORCE MODERN:
MIG-25 FF
MIG-23 FF
SU-24 FF
Ya que tenemos BLUE FORCE ( F/A-18C, F-16C, F-15C/E) para combatir esa REDFORCE.

Por otrol lado aumentar a la par los S2A system con sistemas de mediano a largo alcance Chinos o el desarrollo del S-350, que inicio operaciones el 2009 ( dentro del periodo de la decada de los 2000; al igual que F-16C block 50, F/A-18C 2007, F-15C anunciado entre 2000 y 2010). En lo ideal aumento de unidades navales de otros paises de la REDFOR. 

desde mi punto de vista el F-35 abre la puerta a la 5ta GEN pero creo que antes de construir una arquitectura de sistemas y ambiente para misiones 5ta gen se debe poder haber hecho lo mismo con 3-4 gen.

[razorseal]

I saw like on page 7 Nineline said at least give the a chance. I think we need to chill and really givce them a chance.

Being in aviation myself, and knowing how closely certain things like the F35 are guarded, I will make a sound judgement that there is no data available. They will use physics, fluid dynamics and publicly available data (there's some out there) to create the best F35 they can. However I can with no doubt tell you, we will be missing some things like proper start procedures, SOPs, RCS, AESA, EW, sounds from cokpit etc.

 

You think to tell me that our in-sim A120C or AIM-9X work like the real thing? not even close man. lol

 

Look at turkey, second they got the S400, USA said nope, we won't let our F35s near those. There is no publicly available data. It will be a guessing game.

 

but.... We gotta give Nineline and his team a chance. We really do. Let's see what they come up with. I would have preferred other things like newer block F16, Super Hornet, Their own version of the F15E since Razbam didn't work out... or hell, even the F117 (I bet there is more data on that), but this s what they want to offer us. so let's just give them a chance. Let's see what voodoo magic they come up with. Maybe they have some secret data we don't know about and it can't be publicly shared. That's on them. Don't ask, Don't tell baby.

[ThePops]

9 minutes ago, Zius said:

That is a rather broad and simplistic way of looking at things.

Simulators (including commercially available simulators) have clearly proven their worth in training of real pilots by now. Key to that is realism, which is never 100% but which certainly can be good enough to be valuable.

Entertainment is something else completely and has nothing to do with realism, but only with having fun.

I don't see any disagreement here. I was using the word illusion, not entertainment. Illusion as a concept certainly can be used for entertainment as well as more serious work. For a professional flight sim, the illusion aspect is more important than it's usually is in an entertainment sim. Kind of, if we had the money to buy the equipment and enough time to spend and space to spare, we would, also for entertainment purposes.

I'm confident the F-35 will be cool. It certainly will be popular, and it will as NineLine said let the sim move into the future (even though I only roughly understand what he is aiming at). It's not my first choice, but I will certainly get it as I have done with all the other modules   The F-35 and Kola fits together like hand and glove. Just remember to add the drag chute for the Norwegian F-35s. Today they are used in exactly the same manner as Swedish Gripens and Finnish F-18s using dispersed runways. Finland is getting them too of course.

[John Day]

5 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

He was talking about busy ED helicopter teams, and "recent" releases. Apache, Hind and Chinook. As you know Kiowa is not from ED. 

I would also love to see those you mention, and more... 

Cheers! 

Yeah, perhaps I could have worded it better, I actually meant helicopter overload for the community more so than overload for ED.

[Zius]

24 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

ED are making a flight simulator not defending a criminal charge in court. 

Honestly the self importance in here is off the charts. 

My point was actually:

Quote

Where on the other hand I don't feel the need for evidence of the inner workings of the F-5 or L-39.

I trust(ed) ED and third party devs to bring simulations which are as accurate as possible.

With aircraft which can be openly studied in museums, workshops, books, manuals etc., I have no doubt and I don't feel the need of verifying every detail myself (if I could).

With the proposed F-35, I am feel that I am losing this thrust, namely that ED is dedicated to providing the best possible simulation. And that is a very unpleasant feeling. And probably also why some people (including myself) are reacting perhaps too emotional.

Edited 7 hours ago by Zius

[MAXsenna]

9 minutes ago, ThePops said:

Just remember to add the drag chute for the Norwegian F-35s. Today they are used in exactly the same manner as Swedish Gripens and Finnish F-18s using dispersed runways. Finland is getting them too of course. 

Yes! We need chutes as an option. ☝

[John Day]

3 minutes ago, razorseal said:

I saw like on page 7 Nineline said at least give the a chance. I think we need to chill and really givce them a chance.

Being in aviation myself, and knowing how closely certain things like the F35 are guarded, I will make a sound judgement that there is no data available. They will use physics, fluid dynamics and publicly available data (there's some out there) to create the best F35 they can. However I can with no doubt tell you, we will be missing some things like proper start procedures, SOPs, RCS, AESA, EW, sounds from cokpit etc.

 

You think to tell me that our in-sim A120C or AIM-9X work like the real thing? not even close man. lol

 

Look at turkey, second they got the S400, USA said nope, we won't let our F35s near those. There is no publicly available data. It will be a guessing game.

 

but.... We gotta give Nineline and his team a chance. We really do. Let's see what they come up with. I would have preferred other things like newer block F16, Super Hornet, Their own version of the F15E since Razbam didn't work out... or hell, even the F117 (I bet there is more data on that), but this s what they want to offer us. so let's just give them a chance. Let's see what voodoo magic they come up with. Maybe they have some secret data we don't know about and it can't be publicly shared. That's on them. Don't ask, Don't tell baby.

I fear that ED are going to get grief no matter what they do. If they do a good job they will be damned for it being perceptively over powered and on the flip side, if it doesn't live up to what each player imagines an F-35 to be like, they will be damned again. As you say though, ED should at least be given the opportunity to try.

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, Zius said:

My point was actually:

I trust(ed) ED and third party devs to bring simulations which are as accurate as possible.

With aircraft which can be openly studied in museums, workshops, books, manuals etc., I have no doubt and I don't feel the need of verifying every detail myself (if I could).

With the proposed F-35, I am feel that I am losing this thrust, namely that ED is dedicated to providing the best possible simulation. And that is a very unpleasant feeling. And probably also why some people (including myself) are reacting perhaps too emotional.

But you are judging on if we can bring the best possible simulation long before we have brought the best possible simulation, even with many modules already under our belt. You are here, I hope, because we do things others cannot or are not willing to do, this fits the F-35 perfectly.