F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[BuzzU]

I have faith ED will get the F-35 pretty close and it will be fun to fly.

[Blaine Stars]

Congratulations to Eagle Dynamics for the ongoing progress in the development of the F-15C, F-35A, and MiG-29A for DCS!

It is remarkable to see the commitment to delivering increasingly detailed and authentic simulations to the community. These modules represent more than just aircraft; they are milestones in advancing our favorite simulator, offering new possibilities for immersive and challenging experiences.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that this journey requires patience and support. Unfortunately, a portion of the community continues to discredit the team’s hard work, fostering a negative atmosphere and dampening the enthusiasm of many.

To those who truly understand the effort and dedication behind every detail, let us continue to support this incredible project. ED’s success is our success as aviation and simulation enthusiasts. Believe me, the future of DCS is bright – and together, we are part of this story.

Fly safe, support strong!

[Canada_Moose]

36 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

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

Nobody listens. They want to stick with the drama and pontificating. I don't know why you guys bother sometimes. This real world GA pilot is super happy to continue the dream of flying fast jets via your simulation of the F-35A

[Convoy]

31 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

Nobody listens. They want to stick with the drama and pontificating. I don't know why you guys bother sometimes. This real world GA pilot is super happy to continue the dream of flying fast jets via your simulation of 

I listened. I just don't agree. And that's fine. You don't agree with my opinion, and that's fine too. 

[ThePops]

12 hours ago, BSS_Sniper said:

I’m at a loss for words that you'd even insinuate that anything we currently have is based mostly on guess work.

I think you are a bit dishonest now. We all know the F-16 has had it's "issues", and still has. Just look at the updates and fixes that is done on that module in every single update of DCS coming about once a month. It must be perhaps 100 pages in total, if not more in the F-16.

Things aren't black OR white. This OR that. Good OR bad. They are shades of grey everywhere. Fidelity itself isn't just a single dimensional 1 bit phenomenon that is 100% or nothing. There are lots of aspect, lots of dimensions, and lots of factors in every dimension. When ED say they believe they are able to create a module that is up to their standard, then why shouldn't we believe them? From what I have seen so far, the F-35 has so much open source academic research papers attached to it that the any other aircraft pales in comparison. These documents are not free though, but they are open. I mean, a laser scanned cockpit may be hard to obtain, at least legally, but details about the very complex flight control system is not. There is an overall picture here, you have to weight the total, not just one single factor.  

Here people go straight into attack mode as if this was about life and death. This is seriously weird. This is a game. It's made for entertainment purposes. If you are not entertained, you are using it wrong IMO.

[Jayhawk1971]

Alpha nerds gonna alpha nerd. Woe to any module that threatens to diminish the coveted image of "hardcore simmer" in the world of flight simulation computer games.  

 

[toni]

Well said !  Brilliant future and skies into DCS

[Furiz]

I see F-35 as door opener to other secretive modern aircraft like Rafale or Gripen, Russian, Chinese etc... F-35 will show how to make aircraft simulation without revealing crucial info, and ED is very good in doing that.

F-35 is marvel of technology atm and by developing this aircraft in full fidelity is nothing but a good choice for DCS and flight sim community.

PvP is just a small portion of players and as ED stated many times balance is not priority. You can balance stuff in PvP anyway very easy, just restrict what you think will give unfair advantage to one side or the other.

We are simulating real world, there is no balance there either so I don't think this should be something that should block an opportunity like this one.

[ustio]

I mean I dont agree with the direction aswell as this will gamified DCS even more. but if we take a step back and take a look from ED position, what any other aircraft can they make that can bring them a lot of income?

chizh said making Russian aircraft are Risky at the moment with whats happening. and 3rd gen cold war aircraft, the majority of popullar ones are already taken.

 

but with that being said tho, I do hope that ED make earlier F-16, F-18, F-15 variant(as long as they finish the current one) as a paid upgrade. or the very least allowed other 3rd party dev to make other variant like F-16A. if a new player just got into DCS, then he will probably purchase the modern F-16C instead of the A. so i don't think if other dev make other variant it will compete

[Convoy]

16 minutes ago, ustio said:

what any other aircraft can they make that can bring them a lot of income?

I think the F-15C is a good call. And it will sell A LOT of copies. I also think an F-16AM would, as a lot of the world uses or used to use that. I'd also like to see a BM and D version. Bombers, it's honestly a travesty there's no B-17 yet, with plenty of good examples left to laser scan. B-1B is another I'd buy instantly. 

 

But mostly I'd like to see current modules finished, core upgrades, asset packs, simple things like working loud speakers for bases and carriers, a form of deck crew for bases, ATC (which is apparently close) and on and on. 

 

[Schmidtfire]

42 minutes ago, Convoy said:

I think the F-15C is a good call.

Yes, because there is nothing secret about a mid 2000's F-15C  Good luck modeling the EW and TEWS capability without some degree of guesswork. Heck, here's already a lot of guesswork and estimations in DCS World, be it aircraft or missile performance.

I'm all for highly detailed and well documented aircraft, don't get me wrong, but there needs to be room for both. As long as it is created with the "highest fidelity we can create" mindset, I don't really see any harm with the F-35A project. If anything it might open the doors to some projects that we would never see otherwise. And it's not like everyone will enjoy flying the F-35A and ditch everything else. Because it being that high tech is a niche by itself.

Edited January 19 by Schmidtfire

[ZipLine9]

I'm all in, and a full go for Early Access.

[T.Power]

Right, now things have calmed down a bit and I've had time to do a little research into the F-35, the simulator cockpit and the helmet I do have several questions for ED, to be clear, I am genuinely interested in the points I'm going to raise so please do not take this as an attack on ED.

The simulator cockpit has been cited as a source for development and I've seen the images, but the real cockpit is still classified, how accurate is the sim cockpit and will ED have access to the sim for photogrammetry work?

The helmet is also classified and for me is now the biggest concern in how big the "fudge" factor will have to be, it's a $400,000 unit that requires a bespoke fit for each pilot.  They are reevaluated for fitting every 120 days and a brand new helmet is required if the pilot so much as changes their hairstyle.  This suggest to me there is tech involved that requires micron level precision which is fascinating, this suggests some kind of 3D or holographic technology could be involved, I've been thinking about what else would require that level of accuracy and I'm left scratching my head.  How will ED address the lack of data on the helmet which seems like a fully integrated component of the systems themselves?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

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

TBH, you should have first emphasized the academic papers etc. before trade shows. At least, that's how I'd have written it.

[TempestRiser]

12 hours 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. 

I'm confident that you guys are capable of recreating a very realistic F-35 simulation experience, and I'm more than happy to support this idea. We've come so far from the first "full fidelity" module of DCS. Looking back and seeing how things have evolved, I'm sure the F-35 will follow the same path.

[BIGNEWY]

4 hours ago, TempestRiser said:

I'm confident that you guys are capable of recreating a very realistic F-35 simulation experience, and I'm more than happy to support this idea. We've come so far from the first "full fidelity" module of DCS. Looking back and seeing how things have evolved, I'm sure the F-35 will follow the same path.

Thank you for the support we appreciate it, I know many of you will have a great time with an F-35A 

 

[nessuno0505]

I know every DCS module is not 100% close to the real one. But I know developers research deeply into official manuals and documentation, and this fuels the illusion that DCS is a procedural simulator. I am aware I will not become a fighter pilot by playing DCS, but DCS is the closest thing to becoming a fighter pilot that an "enthusiast from the desktop" can aspire. The excuses: "we cannot add this system because it's not specific to the version we are simulating" or "there are not enough available data for this airplane" contributed to the illusion I was playing a real simulator. A module based on public presentations can't provide the same illusion. I'm sure the f-35 will be a wonderful module, full of details and minutiae as only DCS can provide, but I will know it is not "real". The f-35 breaks the illusion, not only for itself but also for other modules: how can I be sure that public presentations won't be considered enough when doing the f-15c? That's my concern as a DCS lover: I hope I will be able to maintain the illusion even after the F-35, but I am not so sure.

Edited January 20 by nessuno0505

[Art-J]

A decade ago DCS MiG-21, the very 1st 3rd party FF module, was published. Compared to the latest DCS offerings, it is a bit of a YOLO frankenplane itself, with some fictional loadouts, simplified/fictional systems operation and FM issues existing to this day. It was, however, (and still is) considered "good enough" for ED to include in DCS ecosystem, and is still being sold nowadays for full price.

To me that shows two things:

1) Cobra, who was a lead dev at that time, moved to create Heatblur but didn't rest on his laurels from module fidelity point of view and pushed each of their later releases towards higher and higher accuracy - even though clearly he didn't have to and might as well have settled for "MiG-21-grade" modules later on. ED wouldn't stop him. It means that no, 3rd parties never were, and will not be "incentivized" by ED to lower the bar by ED supposedly lowering its own bar. Individual 3rd parties know what they want to do, they know what segment of DCS customers they aim at and they don't need ED's opinion about anything (well, apart from at last basic FM, systems and visual fidelity). Some will push for higher accuracy (with some coding solutions sometimes even surpassing the ED ones), some will settle for lower, but they would be doing it anyway as the bar was never set THAT high in the first place.

2) The "expected" fidelity level of FF modules was never "fixed" and has been somewhat flexible for everyone since the very MiG-21 beginning. For ED and some 3rd party devs "80%-real" will be legally, financially and technically sufficient, for others 50% will do, with the rest being roughly approximated. Both cases fall exactly into the same "best FF representation possible" category, which, by definition, is rather vague and can mean whatever.

In the end, I think the greates outcome of all of this F-35 "drama" is -  more customers will just have to learn to start using brains for a change, be patient and do RESEARCH before buying a new module, rather than storming the ED-shop on release day as if it was walmart on Black Friday (sorry, "African American Friday"). Exactly like in Afghanistan vs Iraq case, some modules will offer higher and better documented accuracy, while some will offer less documented one.

Mind you, I'm not talking about folks who are already very excited about the -35 and will buy it no matter what, because if their favourite kite. I understand it, because I myself will do the same with M3's F4U Corsair when/if it ever comes.

For the rest of DCS players, though, It will (and should) be up to each individual customer to judge if the F-35 "simulation value" after release is sufficient for him/her to pay full price for it, or wait for further systems improvements of it, or wait for sale, or not buy it at all.

As both community managers hinted, wait and see how it turns out and what it brings to DCS as a whole, even if it means loosing that usual 20-30% preorder discount.

[N8AHbl4]

 

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Art-J said:

To me that shows two things:

+1 fully agree and I couldn’t have said it better 

[dcn]

12小时前，Art-J说：

For ED and some 3rd party devs "80%-real" will be legally, financially and technically sufficient, for others 50% will do, with the rest being roughly approximated.

I think currently all the modules in DCS are greater than 80% real, while DCS:F-35 is infinitely close to 0% real.

12小时前，Art-J说：

A decade ago DCS MiG-21, the very 1st 3rd party FF module, was published.

I don't know why so many people say this, the first third party module is Belsimtek's UH-1H.

Edited January 20 by dcn

[ThePops]

About fidelity. Lots of discussion has been going on from time to time among pilots about what a study level simulator is. One would typically use a study level simulator on a PC to improve flying skills in some way or the other (I have been flying myself for more than 40 years, and still am. I also own more than one aircraft).

The short answer, there's no such thing as a study level simulator. It's a marketing term with no specific definition. Commercial simulators are graded A through D, where D is the highest grading. What this means is that an hour in a level D simulator is equivalent to an hour in a real aircraft, as far as training goes at least. I have never used such a simulator myself.

If the producer of a simulator say it is a study level simulation, then that's what it is. It's as simple as that. However, there's still some merit to the term. A very common definition is a simulator/aircraft with accurate systems modelling. Study level then means the simulator can be used to study the systems. This is a bit moot and vague however. Even the simplest aircraft with no systems to speak of at all can be used to study air combat maneuvers for instance. Such an aircraft/sim would be equally study level, only now the FM is what's important to get correct as well as the weapons. The simplest will be a gunfight, and then also the bullet trajectories would have to be modelled for instance.

The most common definition is accurate systems modelling. This is important for IFR in big jets in particular. You want the systems to brake down in a realistic manner, so you can mitigate the situation in a realistic manner. This requires detailed and accurate systems modelling. MSFS has some good planes, but the main platform for this kind of simulations is X-Plane where all the systems modelling is there from the start in any aircraft.

Now, perhaps the best definition of study level simulation I have seen, I read in some magazine way back. It's not about the usage, but about the producer having studied to get the simulation correct. This is better because the term study has a specific meaning. This is from Oxford: "a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation". This makes much more sense. After all, if the simulator should be used for "studying" something, then a requirement is that a study, as defined by Oxford, has been done by the producer of the simulator.

Back to the F-35. Using any definition of study level simulator, this will indeed be what we get. There are tons of stuff to be studied available for the F-35, and that stuff will be modelled in the DCS version of the aircraft for us to study. I think we can agree that the F-35 will be a study level simulator by any definition of the term.

Then fidelity. Fidelity schmidelity   When study level simulator is hard to define, then the term fidelity is a level or two harder. I think this is purely subjective. For some the visual aspects are high up on the list. Some are even expecting laser scanning. To me this is completely weird anyway. In what universe is a laser scanning better than old fashioned blue-prints or a CAD model ? For others it is the sound that has to be good. There's also a purely artistic dimension here, there's an X-factor that's really hard to define, it's a feeling. For me it's the FM. A mediocre/crappy flight model ruins everything for me even if all else are just superb, but that's me.

The term is a big, hairy, fuzzy and subjective multi-dimensional ball that looks different depending on your perspective in that multidimensional universe. The only concrete thing to be said is bigger is better, and that the size is proportional to the study. Maybe, just maybe the F-35 has to be viewed from a slightly different perspective? I don't think it will, but if that should be the case. Will that decrease the fidelity? I would say no. Fidelity is after all proportional to the study, and for the F-35 tons of studies exist.

I don't think I have anything more to say on this matter now. I am confident the F-35 will be just superb and very cool.

[nessuno0505]

Well, if you put it this way, it convinces me. Let's do them make the job. Such a complex model will be out of early access in 10 years, it's too early to worry now.

Edited January 20 by nessuno0505

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Thank you for the support we appreciate it, I know many of you will have a great time with an F-35A 

 

You can put me in the support category as well. I figure you folks at DCS know much more than I do about all the available open-source material. I figure with the public displays combined with the production of at the Super Hornet and the talk about the NGADF, F/A-xx, and other 6th-gen fighters you folks have probably calculated the earliest time to get started on the the F-35. I know I will have fun with the F-35. I hope someone is able to get enough open source data to add modern red for at least as AI. Thank you. 

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, dcn said:

I don't know why so many people say this, the first third party module is Belsimtek's UH-1H.

 

Yes, but Belsimtek wasn't really an independent 3d party, as Matt Wagner said on a 2019 interview "BST was originally set up as a branch of Eagle Dynamics as a 3rd party example as a business practice. With the establishment of other 3rd parties, it no longer made sense to keep that staff under a separate entity. They were then merged back into Eagle Dynamics."

Edited January 20 by Rudel_chw
typo