F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[ThePops]

Drag Chute:

https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/the-f35a-drag-chute-system.html

Probably the first stealthy drag chute pod ever made. It's designed as a wing pylon and can be installed and removed in no-time. It sits between the vertical fins just fwd of the nozzle.

[MAXsenna]

33 minutes ago, ThePops said:

Drag Chute:

https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/the-f35a-drag-chute-system.html

Probably the first stealthy drag chute pod ever made. It's designed as a wing pylon and can be installed and removed in no-time. It sits between the vertical fins just fwd of the nozzle.

I failed to notice, but there's a wishlist section now. You should make an entry!  

[rfxcasey]

2 hours 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" 

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

The Flaming Cliffs aircraft have always been in DCS so I don't see how exactly ED is "shifting" away from anything. Mission builders as well as server hosts are free to include or exclude whatever aircraft they see fit. No one is forcing anyone to play a mission or fly in a server that doesn't meet their preferred level of "realism".

[NATO]

I might not have bought it anyway, as it is just not my era, but its still fairly sad to see. It will almost certainly sell like crazy, because many people simply don't care as long as they get theirs. Time will tell if the money is worth the shift in policy, as you promise that this module will (somehow) bring huge sweeping improvements to the sim. It's not the balance or lack of contemporaries for me, but rather, as many others have stated, the effect it will have moving forward. I knew when the Fakeshark 3 came out that we would end up like this eventually. The thought that 3rd parties will now be able to point at the F-35 in order to justify cutting greater corners (and ED has no right to criticize or block them for it now), is saddening. Why go through the painstaking work that 3rd parties are going through when you can just watch youtube and guess now?

My issue with it is that it will be the equivalent of a war thunder, MSFS, or modder level module compared to its full fidelity family. Saying it will be the most accurate on the market is insane, because how do you even gauge that when NO ONE knows? Saying your 15%~ accurate module is the most accurate on the market isn't technically lying, but its being disingenuous. Users saying that other modules aren't close either, or that we haven't flown them and wouldn't know either so who cares, is just dumb. It would be similar to if our F-4E had maverick slaving on its pod, aim-120s, and other fictional abilities. I have never flown an F-4E in real life, so by that logic I cannot complain right? Except that we have the declassified resources to prove that it didn't. You can't say the same for the F-35. It will be no better than an MSFS module and now truly opens the gate for "good enough" guesswork modules. You are quite literally admitting that you will be modeling an F-35 brochure.

I wish the best for ED. I do. I have been flying since DCS: A-10C (actually Lock-On). I grew up with ED in a sense. I have supported and bought almost every module and terrain for sale, even if I don't enjoy the era (WW2). I am also very interested in the F-15C, and will almost certainly buy that. But how can we be assured that the F-15C will be done to the best it can be done? Will you simply watch a youtube video or watch an air show if you don't feel like reading extensive documentation? Will we see "mass produced" modules that are "good enough" moving forward? I can simply not buy the F-35, and I most likely won't, but changing the mission and path that I have supported is more harming in my opinion than a module I sit out on. I would love to see how you justify holding your third parties to the same standard of detail that you have up until this point.

Edited January 18 by NATO

[LorenLuke]

I'm honestly surprised that this was the decision to go with, or that the amount of data purported to be available would be much less than some of the older, or even retired systems. I'm almost certain that something like an F-117A would have far more documentation given its older age, retired status, compromised make from being shot down, and far less likely to receive raised eyebrows and backlash that the F-35A has, while still being one of the more prolific stealth fighters in existence, an absolutely perfect candidate to go with the development of the Iraq map, and something that I'm sure would sell equally well.

[Creampie]

Telling red enjoyers that lack of information is why you can't give them a su30, j10 or any of the sort is completely out the window...

 

But will still never happen.

 

F35 when?

[Jayhawk1971]

As I wrote in another thread, DCS is not a zero-sum game. Your FF modules will not suddenly get dumbed down with the release of the F-35. I bet those who don't want to encounter the F-35 in MP will find more than enough servers that won't allow 5th gen.

Whether or not ED has "enough documentation" to go ahead is strictly ED's problem. It's their decision to move ahead with development, and it is the customer's decision to purchase the product, or not. I bet there will be ample reviews once it's released, and I assume at some point it will receive the "try before you buy" option as well.

Bottom line, I highly doubt that ED's choice to make this module will have a significant negative impact on current gameplay, or DCS as a whole. If you don't like it: avoid and don't buy.

Edited January 18 by Jayhawk1971

[MAXsenna]

17 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

I'm almost certain that something like an F-117A would have far more documentation given its older age, retired status, compromised make from being shot down, and far less likely to receive raised eyebrows and backlash that the F-35A has, while still being one of the more prolific stealth fighters in existence, an absolutely perfect candidate to go with the development of the Iraq map, and something that I'm sure would sell equally well.

Well, a 3rd party is doing it. Probably IFE. 

[LorenLuke]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

Well, a 3rd party is doing it. Probably IFE. 

Wait, a third party is doing the F-117? Where was this said?

[MAXsenna]

Wait, a third party is doing the F-117? Where was this said?

Discord apparently by BN. And IFE has hinted they're doing an American aircraft used in a recent conflict in Europe after the Gina. So, what kind of American aircraft used in the Balkans could that be?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Sandman1330]

59 minutes ago, rfxcasey said:

The Flaming Cliffs aircraft have always been in DCS so I don't see how exactly ED is "shifting" away from anything. Mission builders as well as server hosts are free to include or exclude whatever aircraft they see fit. No one is forcing anyone to play a mission or fly in a server that doesn't meet their preferred level of "realism".

It’s actually me you are quoting, not Oban, so I’ll address.

The difference is FC4 are advertised as simplified / low fidelity (and priced accordingly). This one is advertised as high fidelity, a bar it can’t reasonably achieve in comparison to modules with thousands of pages of documentation that describe how they work. Much will have to be interpolated through educated guesses with this new module, something ED has refused to do with other full fidelity modules. I have no doubt it will be fun, detailed and immersive, but it just can’t be accurate.
 

This is why I’ve advocated a third “high fidelity” tier for this one (and those that come after it). Detailed, clickable, but not able to be substantiated to the same level as full fidelity. Those customers who are interested in being as close as possible to the real thing can then, in an informed way, decide whether it works for them or not. It shouldn’t be advertised as the same level of fidelity as A10C, F18, etc, because it simply can’t be. If it is, then I for one have greatly overestimated how accurate the others actually are - and there lies the other concern in people’s minds. If this is truly to be to the same level as A10C, Hornet, et al - then this can only mean those modules are not as true to life as they were thought (and advertised) to be.

Now, I’ve said my piece - my voice has been heard (I hope), and I’m going to stop responding to pings and responses as I’m just cluttering up the thread with the same argument again and again. If you buy it, great, it was free (my argument, not the module). If you don’t, carry on as if you were normal (little military humour there, no one take this seriously pls).

Edited January 18 by Sandman1330

[MiGCap1]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

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. 

Don't You see what the critics mean? We all are sure You will bring the "best possible simulation", no doubt. But "best possible" would be around 35 per cent of the real thing and that's lower the DCS standard considerably. And that is our (the critics) problem: The sacrifice of the standard which makes DCS standing out above other flight sims, for a project which anyone involved in working with the real thing can tell that You cannot get any near of it - that's what our point is.

I do like this aircraft very much. Actually, despite all the problems listed in the public it is by far the most sophisticated combat jet in the world - and it looks awesome.

(My pic, but "only" made out of an Eurofighter Typhoon):

 

 

But You won't do this bird justice by creating under the label of DCS a cripple module which is only a shadow of the real thing.

Do Yourself a favour, @Wags: Use the manpower working on this one for a project where You can better succeed according to Your standards.

Or at least tell the community the truth: That You will deliver them a product which mostly consisted of fantasy and guessing because You need the money it brings. That would be a honest move and could be well accepted.

 

Edited January 18 by MiGCap1

[Sandman1330]

2 minutes ago, MiGCap1 said:

Don't You see what the critics mean? We all are sure You will bring the "best possible simulation", no doubt. But "best possible" would be around 35 per cent of the real thing and that's lower the DCS standard considerably. And that is our (the critics) problem: The sacrifice of the standard which makes DCS standing out above other flight sims, for a project which anyone involved in working with the real thing can tell that You cannot get any near of it - that's what our point is.

I do like this aircraft very much. Actually, despite all the problems listed in the public it is by far the most sophisticated combat jet in the world - and it looks awesome (my pic, but "only" made out of an Eurofighter Typhoon):

 

 

But You won't do this bird justice by creating under the label of DCS a cripple module which is only a shadow of the real thing.

Do Yourself a favour, @Wags: Use the manpower working on this one for a project where You can better succeed according to Your standards.

Or at least tell the community the truth: That You will deliver them a product which mostly consisted of fantasy and guessing because You need the money it brings. That would be a honest move and could be well accepted.

 

Well said, and beautiful picture

[rfxcasey]

20 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

It’s actually me you are quoting, not Oban, so I’ll address.

The difference is FC4 are advertised as simplified / low fidelity (and priced accordingly). This one is advertised as high fidelity, a bar it can’t reasonably achieve in comparison to modules with thousands of pages of documentation that describe how they work. Much will have to be interpolated through educated guesses with this new module, something ED has refused to do with other full fidelity modules. I have no doubt it will be fun, detailed and immersive, but it just can’t be accurate.
 

This is why I’ve advocated a third “high fidelity” tier for this one (and those that come after it). Detailed, clickable, but not able to be substantiated to the same level as full fidelity. Those customers who are interested in being as close as possible to the real thing can then, in an informed way, decide whether it works for them or not. It shouldn’t be advertised as the same level of fidelity as A10C, F18, etc, because it simply can’t be. If it is, then I for one have greatly overestimated how accurate the others actually are - and there lies the other concern in people’s minds. If this is truly to be to the same level as A10C, Hornet, et al - then this can only mean those modules are not as true to life as they were thought (and advertised) to be.

Now, I’ve said my piece - my voice has been heard (I hope), and I’m going to stop responding to pings and responses as I’m just cluttering up the thread with the same argument again and again. If you buy it, great, it was free (my argument, not the module). If you don’t, carry on as if you were normal (little military humour there, no one take this seriously pls).

Whelp, there is nothing you can do about it so, guess you better learn to live with it or find something else to do. The announcement of the F-35 in no way undermines or diminishes my confidence that the A-10 or F/A-18 are not as realistic as ED was allowed to make them.

Edited January 18 by rfxcasey

[Convoy]

Like many others, I have my concerns about the F-35 module. Going by the faq it's 85% guesswork and hearsay. We don't need that in DCS. DCS' niche is realism. 

 

IMO postpone the F-35, and put the team that would work on it, to work on the other modules that need finishing. Not to mention core stuff, ATC, Vulkan, updating old modules to current graphics, etc. I welcome the 15C because that's feasible. But a half-baked War Thunder F-35? 

 

No thanks. Those man hours are much better spent elsewhere if just updating the F-5 took 7000 hours. 

 

Do an official poll and ask your community what they rather want. Current modules finished, Core work, asset packs, updated modules, or the F-35. Then put the people at work in that area. 

 

My $0.02

Edited January 18 by Convoy

[upyr1]

On 1/16/2025 at 3:29 PM, YoYo said:

Now its a time for Su-57 ;>.

If someone can cobble together a Su-57 that meets ED's standards with open source documents that would be awesome. 

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, MiGCap1 said:

Don't You see what the critics mean? We all are sure You will bring the "best possible simulation", no doubt. But "best possible" would be around 35 per cent of the real thing and that's lower the DCS standard considerably. And that is our (the critics) problem: The sacrifice of the standard which makes DCS standing out above other flight sims, for a project which anyone involved in working with the real thing can tell that You cannot get any near of it - that's what our point is.

I do like this aircraft very much. Actually, despite all the problems listed in the public it is by far the most sophisticated combat jet in the world - and it looks awesome.

(My pic, but "only" made out of an Eurofighter Typhoon):

 

 

But You won't do this bird justice by creating under the label of DCS a cripple module which is only a shadow of the real thing.

Do Yourself a favour, @Wags: Use the manpower working on this one for a project where You can better succeed according to Your standards.

Or at least tell the community the truth: That You will deliver them a product which mostly consisted of fantasy and guessing because You need the money it brings. That would be a honest move and could be well accepted.

 

I agree. The first time it was announced, it crashed and burned because the community figured theres no way in hell they can make it accurately, and 13 some odd years later my feelings are pretty much the same. That was a huge mess then...still considered to be a huge mess now, and quite frankly it looks like everyones opinions havent changed either.

 

 

Edited January 18 by Hammer1-1

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

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

 

My question is wether or not it would be possible to fix this with the Su-57? either AI or flyable. 

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

• It's not likely to be accurate enough (whatever that actually means) because there's no available accurate data

This is my biggest concern I'd like to know more about ED's standards  and what other planes have we seen get rejected that could be release to the F-35's standards?

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

• It will put an imbalance to the playing field

This is why I don't expect it to be on many PVP servers (unless we get the Su-57 either as a mod or officially) or F-35s on bothsides

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

• Lots of people simply don't want it.

This is a concern of mine. I can see it attracting new players but I can also see it causing problems with the base. All I know is if the F-35 had been released as a MAC module I'd have felt better 

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

 

• It draws recourses away from more important tasks.
• And so on and so forth

People always say this about every new module. I don't know how big the ED staff is or how many developer teams they have but I have stated DCS needs to release modules

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

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.

Balance isn't an issue with PVE and single-player, but I figure if you are interested in more balance then you are better off with Cold war era servers  

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

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  

The question I have with the F-35 and J-8 are what data is actually needed to do a good module? 

3 hours 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.

 

3 hours ago, ThePops said:

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.

This is a good question, and related to this is using the F-35 standards what other modules are possible? 

6 minutes ago, Kageseigi said:

Alas, all I ask is to fix the freaking Phoenix missile, or take the handcuffs off of Heatblur so they can. It's a shame for the mighty Tomcat to have been turned into a paper tiger even against its contemporaries. I'll let other players have their magical, fantasy "aircraft" if they want. Just let me have my TOP GUN "fantasies" as well.

Honestly, I try to stay out of all the drama and politics, but this is just infuriating. There's no way the F-35 should even be plausible for DCS in its current state.

ED, you have become a meme outside of these forums, it is sad. But this announcement just proves that meme to be true. Fix your existing products. Live by your OLD (stated) standards. Allow RESPECTABLE 3rd Parties to fix problems with THEIR missiles up to THIER standards if, indeed, their standards are higher.

Yeah, yeah, I know... "I'm wrong." Whatever. I don't care. At least get your stories straight so there's no more finger-pointing between you and 3rd Parties. It's absolutely annoying. I don't even have the desire to turn the "game" on anymore. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't slap us "players" in the face with these blatant stunts, ploys, and spins. I know it's your job in PR, but you suck at it. Please don't insult our intelligence.

 

P.S. If you really want a lot of "fantasy" customers, release the Super Tomcat 21 also. I'll settle for an F-14D, though.

the D and super cats would be awesome 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

7 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

I agree. The first time it was announced, it crashed and burned because the community figured theres no way in hell they can make it accurately, and 13 some odd years later my feelings are pretty much the same. That was a huge mess then...still considered to be a huge mess now, and quite frankly it looks like everyones opinions havent changed either.

 

 

ED has grown immensely since then and having it being a first party project is the only way it'll have a chance.

That said, I'm still keen to find out a *LOT* more about how they handle fidelity etc.

[Hammer1-1]

Just now, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

ED has grown immensely since then and having it being a first party project is the only way it'll have a chance.

That said, I'm still keen to find out a *LOT* more about how they handle fidelity etc.

Yeah I agree 100%...but with that said, personally I think they need to finish a few modules first, and frankly Id seriously like to know how ED thinks they could model the AESA radar to such a high fidelity without just making it "work" like a video game radar like in easy mode. If they can pull it off and fool even the professional F-35 drivers around then have at it...but I got my ass chewed out for posting an ITAR image once, and knowing after Ive worked at Lockheed once upon the time, the entirety of the F-35 is ITAR controlled. Man, I have serious conflicts right now with this info....

[NineLine]

17 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

I agree. The first time it was announced, it crashed and burned because the community figured theres no way in hell they can make it accurately, and 13 some odd years later my feelings are pretty much the same. That was a huge mess then...still considered to be a huge mess now, and quite frankly it looks like everyones opinions havent changed either.

 

 

Once again, it did not crash and burn for any reason but confidence was lost in the person who wanted to do it. There was never even a contract signed with ED as far as I know. It didn't even get rolling. Comparing that to our effort is disingenuous at best. 

All that said, I see this thread just spinning in circles, you all got your opinions out and now it is time to just wait and see what we do. I am sure there will be plenty of reviews when it first releases and you all can make a more informed decision then. Thanks al for the feedback. 

[YoYo]

The other topic is closed, but I would like to draw attention to a rather important thing that appeared in another thread.

Contrary to appearances, the F-35 avionics are not at all complicated to recreate. The F-35A avionics are based on known solutions from 4th generation plus jets, transferred to the new machine. It differs in parameters, of course (some) and the very end of the playback and processing for the pilot, but this is not a revolution, but an evolution, which is based on a large logic from 4+ generations. In 2015 (wow, that's ten years ago, but I can say that now). I had the pleasure of testing Lockheed's F-35 simulator before a commercial contract was signed. I spent over an hour there, not only getting to know the avionics but also having a few dogfights, and although the experience of the whole thing was almost Matrix-like (especially 10 years ago), there was nothing surprising. Everything is reproducible, and a good example is India Foxt Echo model do MSFS, and before P3D. Of course, everything that is most interesting and important is under the hood and these are secret things, but who said that ED does not have some kind of contract, like it was with the A-10C back in the day, but of course he can't talk about it too loudly  (although of course the situation in the world is different now than it was with the simulator for military purposes like it was for the Warthog)? Another issue is that the work on the F-35 announced today does not mean that we will get the module right away, it will probably be the end of 2026 or even later. The obvious fact is that more documents and data will come to light during this time, and it will also be later. Anyone who has been associated with DCS for a longer time knows that sometimes modules received 3 FMs during this time and several avionics upgrades (a perfect example is e.g. M2000, whose avionics changed to a very large extent after receiving new materials). This means that there is nothing to worry about today, simply. I'm rather an optimist because the direction here is quite simple than some assume.

Fingers crossed and I hope we will recive more opponents for the other side (Gen 4 and 4+), especially as AI, so that even more equal conflicts can be created. Regards!

[YoYo]

Btw. For Some, Dreams Come True (2013) :

 

[Canada_Moose]

War Thunder is and always will be an arcade game. It’s Ace Combat on steroids.

DCS has never been such and never will be even with an F-35 in it. If ED couldn’t do it, they wouldn’t. It’s that simple. All this pontificating about a module that’s more than likely 2 years away is getting ridiculous, especially when the War Thunder comparison come out. It’s not even close. 
 

Also, BMS has a half baked Hornet in it. Does this mean BMS is also War Thunder?

 

 

Edited January 18 by Canada_Moose

[Creampie]

13 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

War Thunder is and always will be an arcade game. It’s Ace Combat on steroids.

DCS has never been such and never will be even with an F-35 in it. If ED couldn’t do it, they wouldn’t. It’s that simple. All this pontificating about a module that’s more than likely 2 years away is getting ridiculous, especially when the War Thunder comparison come out. It’s not even close. 
 

Also, BMS has a half baked Hornet in it. Does this mean BMS is also War Thunder?

 

 

 

War Thunder is a PVP game

DCS is a PVE game that we are lucky to have server creators making PVP servers in.

From a PVP standpoint, He is correct. Its a gimmick. The EF alone tipped the "balance" or parity that was already heavily one sided"

Now here comes the F35... From what the game is based on (PVE) sure... Have your fun shooting mig29s & whatever. From a PVP standpoint with the only real red module in sight is a 9.12.... Well thats a little concerning.