F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[Robi Hobby]

 

[AMEDooley]

Which software is planned? I’ve heard 2B and 3i. 2B would be problematic for anyone wishing to use the gun.

[TheFreshPrince]

Sorry, but DCS is in general not realistic enough that this is a valid argument. There's so much missing or simplified in DCS in general and even the F-18 or F-16 are still a lot of guesswork and trial and error. We don't know a lot about many weapons in DCS, but only few people complain about this. So a Eurofighter or F-35 wouldn't be much different from the guesswork we already have.

It's a prestige project for ED and if it goes well, it might open the door for other aircraft, hopefully redfor ones.

Edited January 18 by TheFreshPrince

[BuzzU]

 

I can fly the A-10C ll or F/A-18C when I want to be serious. Just like I do now. For some more modern fun i'll buy the F-35. I just fly SP, so who cares what I do anyway? I'm just an old man (82) trying to have a good time.

 

edit...Thanks for the Likes guys.

 

Edited January 19 by BuzzU

[Canada_Moose]

Again, does a half baked incomplete Hornet (way less fidelity than the DCS version) in BMS make it any less of a simulator? I don’t think so. 

[BSS_Sniper]

You sound pretty new if you think the aircraft we have are mostly guesswork and that would be ok for a f35. No offense but that’s just not how it is. 
 

 I fly for a living.  I spent 22 years in the military and between the two I know and have shared dcs with mil pilots that fly the Apache, F16, F18, F5, Harrier, A10 and some others. I even flew with a prior Iraqi mig 21 pilot. Every single one of them confirmed how accurate they are from the normal systems, weapons systems, subpages within the aircraft mfd software, etc. I also fly with current and former mil pilots in my DCS squadron on a weekly basis, same thing. Even someone who doesn’t fly and/or have access to people like that can look at plenty of mil pilots flying and talking about DCS aircraft on YouTube. I’m at a loss for words that you'd even insinuate that anything we currently have is based mostly on guess work. 

Edited January 19 by BSS_Sniper

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

5 hours ago, AMEDooley said:

Which software is planned? I’ve heard 2B and 3i. 2B would be problematic for anyone wishing to use the gun.

The 2B comment was a mistake. We don't know, precisely, yet. So, at the very least? We can probably be positive it isn't 2B.

 

 

6 hours ago, rajdary said:

I agree with you that probably ED has some type of contract similar to the A-10C, and surely one of the things that back it up most, is the fact that the development time is ridiculously short….. release in 2026? I have been around for a long time in DCS, Since Lock On MAC. So we all know how much a module takes to be made. How can they make the most complicated module ever in DCS in only 2 years??

The answer can only be that its already cooked, just has to be served.

Or that it's just marketing. They may have gotten some new hires, some new workflow ideas, etc. However, there's absolutely no way it'll drop in '26. Many will act shocked when it doesn't, despite this being the same song and dance that has happened with just about ever module released, be they first or third party.

[rajdary]

3 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The 2B comment was a mistake. We don't know, precisely, yet. So, at the very least? We can probably be positive it isn't 2B.

 

 

Or that it's just marketing. They may have gotten some new hires, some new workflow ideas, etc. However, there's absolutely no way it'll drop in '26. Many will act shocked when it doesn't, despite this being the same song and dance that has happened with just about ever module released, be they first or third party.

Could be, but the Eurofighter was announced in 2020, and its still getting cooked. Thats 6-7 years. In the case of the F-35 including all the RCS,EW,NDI stuff, it should be reasonable to calculate around that much 6-7 years minimum. Marketing is one thing, lying is another. Eagle Dynamics is a very serious company and have always delivered. Sometimes late but always delivered. I really believe in them after all these years.

So i really dont think its going to be 6-7 years in development if they are planning 2026, it will probably be 2027 or 2028, its also in their own interest as a company. Having it ready as early as possible is good for Eagle Dynamics and good for us the customers, its a clear Win-Win situation.

Edited January 19 by rajdary

[TheFreshPrince]

I wrote a lot, not mostly, be fair. It's never gonna be 100% accurate, that's just how it works. There's a reason why the flight models get overhauled like every year and people are then still discussing the performance of it and finding problems.

Modelling MFDs and switches is one thing, but it's not a button simulator, is it? Same applies to weapons, we still have no real data about countermeasure resistance, etc. Do I see you complaining about this or do you just accept it?

Let's talk about the Eurofighter, a classified, recent jet, which for sure will be not as accurate as an F-16/F-18. I see nobody questioning it or complaining about it. If you are in this game so long, you must remember, how the F-16 and F-18 were in the beginning? And how long it took until now just so they are maybe 80/85% accurate? Yet people expect a perfect, fully capable F-35 from the start? If this is the case then we will never have anything modern ever and can only stick to ww2 and cold war, which would be a pitty.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, rajdary said:

Could be, but the Eurofighter was announced in 2020, and its still getting cooked. Thats 6-7 years. In the case of the F-35 including all the RCS,EW,NDI stuff, it should be reasonable to calculate around that much 6-7 years minimum. Marketing is one thing, lying is another. Eagle Dynamics is a very serious company and have always delivered. Sometimes late but always delivered. I really believe in them after all these years.

So i really dont think its going to be 6-7 years in development if they are planning 2026, it will probably be 2027 or 2028, its also in their own interest as a company. Having it ready as early as possible is good for Eagle Dynamics and good for us the customers, its a clear Win-Win situation.

I think I have to agree. A '27 or '28 release seems feasible. What I'd be curious to know? How long did the MiG-29 take in development? If we could look at how long that took, since it's new from the ground up, it could indicate a larger staff or a new, better optimized work flow.

[Robi Hobby]

 

[mikko.1842]

I have zero interest in the F-35A module, BUT, we all know it will sell very well.

If it sells well, it will make more money for ED... money they could use to improve some unfinished work and/or introduce more redfor aircrafts.

So yes, I think ED, as a company which needs to make money, chose the right direction.

[buceador]

 

Interesting comment from Indiafoxtecho

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063594881948

[Mr_sukebe]

If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.

After all, there’s probably very few who have bought every module.

Just be careful to not get into the realms of potentially dictating what others should and shouldn’t buy or making wild guesses about just how informed ED is without asking first.

[Rongor]

On 1/18/2025 at 4:33 AM, Convoy said:

Going by the faq it's 85% guesswork and hearsay.

The problem with this thread you created here is that you put up a wrong claim as basis.
If you would actually go by the FAQ, there would be no room for any of your assumptions and "concern".

Not only do you incorrectly point to the FAQ for your claim, the FAQ actually outright states that the module will not be based on guesswork.

Your made up 85% are entirely fiction.

 

On 1/18/2025 at 4:33 AM, Convoy said:

Like many others

Triggering unnecessary concerns by commenting on made up stuff is the only thing concerning here. It's the main reason there are so many others

[YoYo]

26 minutes ago, buceador said:

 

Interesting comment from Indiafoxtecho

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063594881948

Thx. For non FB owners:

"NOTE ON DCS:F-35 - WE ARE NOT INVOLVED!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
After the surprise announcement of the DCS:F-35 we have received several messages asking if we were involved in the development.
The answer is NO: WE ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, although years ago we had, of course, discussed to port our MSFS F-35 to DCS.
Frankly, to make this a realistic F-35 simulation, it is totally understandable that ED decided to develop this on their own as "first party" official module, as there are a number of changes/improvements to the simulation core needed to make it work.
However, we have seen a lot of misinformed discussion about the potential "realism" that ED can achieve, as they declared it to be a "full fidelity" module and we'd like to clarify that we believe they can do an EXCELLENT job in terms of realism: contrary to popular belief, much of the required information on the F-35 air vehicle is publicly available (e.g. academic papers) and there are dozens of videos of cockpit simulators, showing the avionics and the pilot interface in great detail. Moreover, a lot of the official aircraft documentation is UNCLASSIFIED (although it is RESTRICTED).
Long story short, the F-35 is actually better documented than most people think - and it IS better documented than the F-22, and even (to a much lesser extent) than the Eurofighter.
There are, however, some critical areas in the development, such as the actual performance of the radar and the sensors (that is CLASSIFIED) and the actual radar cross section (which can be, to some extent, simulated with commercially available tools such as HF-SS or CST).
So, yes, there will be areas in which ED will have to guesstimate some things - so il will not be (OBVIOUSLY) 100% REAL.
But (spoiler) NO SIMULATION IS 100% REAL.
Can it break the game balance? Definitely YES.
But that is what the F-35 can do in real life too."

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

56 minutes ago, mikko.1842 said:

I have zero interest in the F-35A module, BUT, we all know it will sell very well.

If it sells well, it will make more money for ED... money they could use to improve some unfinished work and/or introduce more redfor aircrafts.

So yes, I think ED, as a company which needs to make money, chose the right direction.

There's certainly less excuse against the introduction of certain redfor aircraft, now. Of course, time will tell.

[VirusAM]

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

There is already an unofficial poll and vast majority of people is happy about it.
I am one of those, hoping also that it will bring the needed updates to create the right environment for it...like AI par foes (j20, su57, f22), ai improvements and better ew environment.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please if you are going to give feedback keep it respectful, insults and jibes at the work we do and the team dont help. 

 

We know what our community wants, we work very hard at getting feedback from many of you. 

DCS is going to continue to grow and we will continue to develop, you may not understand our long term goals at the moment but I think if you are patient enough you will.

The F-35A and the F-15C are very popular choices, if they are not for you that is fine, but before you pass judgement why not try it when it is ready. We still have a long way to go in development so I hope you will enjoy the journey with us. 

Have fun with your flights in DCS, remember DCS is for entertainment purposes and I hope you will enjoy DCS for many years to come. 

thank you 

[Jester986]

On 1/17/2025 at 8:33 PM, Convoy said:

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

I 100% agree but there have been clues to some issues at ED for awhile. This will generate a huge amount of cash for them so there’s no stopping it. Probably their answer to avoid a subscription model. The more positive possibilitie is they have a deal with an Airforce to make an F-35 and they got permission to release it to DCS if they tweak a few things off from actual and don’t admit that they’re working for a government customer. 

Edited January 19 by Jester986

[Convoy]

10 hours ago, BSS_Sniper said:

You sound pretty new if you think the aircraft we have are mostly guesswork and that would be ok for a f35. No offense but that’s just not how it is.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I know we have super accurate models, like the Tomcat and Phantom just to name 2. And because we do, I personally am NOT ok with models that are mostly guesswork. Leave that to the Ace Combats and War Thunders. 

[BIGNEWY]

17 minutes ago, Convoy said:

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I know we have super accurate models, like the Tomcat and Phantom just to name 2. And because we do, I personally am NOT ok with models that are mostly guesswork. Leave that to the Ace Combats and War Thunders. 

Starting around 2010, hands-on F-35 demonstrations became commonplace at defense tradeshows. These featured detailed system demonstrations that covered a broad range of operations and capabilities that provided great insight into the operation of the aircraft across different mission types. Our goal is to create an F-35A simulation that combines this wealth of data with academic papers, public sub-systems data, and common Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) to fill in only a few areas lacking any information (like other existing DCS aircraft). Compared to other modern aircraft, we’ve discovered a great deal more information about its operation than most 4 and 4+ generation aircraft. 

Our F-35A will not be based on guesswork, watching air shows, Wikipedia or anything like that. Rather it is being designed in relation to credible data that we feel very confident will provide a good representation of what it is to operate this aircraft in the context of a study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment market. 

[Convoy]

30 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Starting around 2010, hands-on F-35 demonstrations became commonplace at defense tradeshows. These featured detailed system demonstrations that covered a broad range of operations and capabilities that provided great insight into the operation of the aircraft across different mission types. Our goal is to create an F-35A simulation that combines this wealth of data with academic papers, public sub-systems data, and common Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) to fill in only a few areas lacking any information (like other existing DCS aircraft). Compared to other modern aircraft, we’ve discovered a great deal more information about its operation than most 4 and 4+ generation aircraft. 

Our F-35A will not be based on guesswork, watching air shows, Wikipedia or anything like that. Rather it is being designed in relation to credible data that we feel very confident will provide a good representation of what it is to operate this aircraft in the context of a study-level flight simulation game for the entertainment market. 

No offense, but that doesn't read the same to me as, we have comprehensive data like NATOPS manuals and laser scanning. 

I wish you guys good luck of course, but in my opinion, and that's all it is, it's not the same standard DCS is renowned for. 

[LcSummers]

For me it´s a must have!

 

I´am definitely in and i can´t wait to take my hands over this module!

 

Edited January 19 by LcSummers

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Convoy said:

No offense, but that doesn't read the same to me as, we have comprehensive data like NATOPS manuals and laser scanning. 

I wish you guys good luck of course, but in my opinion, and that's all it is, it's not the same standard DCS is renowned for. 

No problem, I understand and you have shared your opinion. I am sorry my replies have not put your mind at rest. Again I hope you will at least try it when it is ready, we have a long way to go yet. 

best regards

bignewy