F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[norman99]

There's no aircraft more reliant on accurate radar cross section modelling, radar detection modeling, and multi-sensor integration, than the F-35. And yet historically these are some of ED's weakest areas, as many who have argued for improvements/features over multiple years can attest.

If ED can't/won't implement accurate representations in these core areas for the F/A-18, when they have access to all the data and expertise they need, what makes anyone think they'll do a better job just making it up for the F-35?

[Pilum]

5 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Well, then you need to define short term and long term. Pretty sure ED is in for the lather.

I don't think your analogy quite fit here. 

I've come the conclusion that they might not have been totally honest about that. Easier way to say no. We can't really expect them to willingly lose money. If the MiG-29 sells well too. I'm sure that will be an incentive to make more Redfor modules.

Well what I mean is that while I agree that they will probably make money short term, is that in the long terms their status as a producer of high fidelity flight simulations products could be tarnished by releasing modules that inevitably (since the systems are still classified) must contain loads of guesswork.

I think there is still a lot of money to be made on producing high quality 3rd and 4th gen aircraft (which they already do and are quite successful at), so I don't see them risk loosing any money as long as they retain a good name as flight simulation producers. So more of the same would be better I say.

[waterman]

Lockheed Martin's F35

Might be a good idea to put a stop to all these silly forum topics and posts.

Lockheed Martin are very sensitive about their name and products.

They dont take these things lightly.

You might get a full page notice to end the F35 project if not very careful.

Edited January 21 by waterman
Moderators tool said spelling was wrong.

[MAXsenna]

9 minutes ago, Pilum said:

Well what I mean is that while I agree that they will probably make money short term, is that in the long terms their status as a producer of high fidelity flight simulations products could be tarnished by releasing modules that inevitably (since the systems are still classified) must contain loads of guesswork.

Yeah, I understood that. "Could be"! If they still release other modules according to "purists" expectations, I think they will hold on to their good name.

9 minutes ago, Pilum said:

I think there is still a lot of money to be made on producing high quality 3rd and 4th gen aircraft (which they already do and are quite successful at), so I don't see them risk loosing any money as long as they retain a good name as flight simulation producers. So more of the same would be better I say.

I agree with this, while thinking that if they can draw in more new users with the F-35, and those users can be smitten by the ecosystem. That could potentially make those users interested in older aircraft in the long term.

22 minutes ago, Pilum said:

So maybe you should consider that there are people here who actually know a thing or two before categorizing them into gamers and Karen’s?

Wouldn't being called a purist be a compliment for you? (Couldn't resist ) 

[MAXsenna]

3 minutes ago, waterman said:

Lockheed Martin are very sensitive about their name and products.

So why do you misspell it?  

[waterman]

24 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

So why do you misspell it?  

Dont get smart just take note of what i said.

Theres a lot of real info here -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#:~:text=The Lockheed Martin F-35,Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Edited January 21 by waterman

[Yeti42]

My first thought on hearing this was "Oh dear"  ED has been saying for years that they could not create modules for newer aircraft as they system information was still classified.  This apparently, is now not an issue.  What I suspect we will end up with is an approximation of an F35 based on limited public domain information and anecdotal evidence,  it will be no more than a community mod.   The reason I play DCS is for realism in the knowledge that that aircraft have been modeled in a highly accurate way, once you start fudging modules together based on  projected increased sales, you are on a rocky road to something akin to War Thunder, which don't get me wrong, has it's place and is probably fun to play, but not a flight simulator modeled to the level we have become accustomed to in DCS.  

[Pilum]

33 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Wouldn't being called a purist be a compliment for you? (Couldn't resist ) 

Now that you put it like that.....

 

Edited January 21 by Pilum

[skywalker22]

1 hour ago, Pilum said:

You and those who liked this post didn’t read what I wrote above did you? Because that post clearly explains why those challenges cannot be overcome for an in-service 6th gen aircraft like the F-35.

 

Its a 5th gen, not 6th.

What ever ED comes up with this plane, will be not 85% guesswork, but 99%. So, we better forget about it, and focus on 4th gen, and now upcoming Mig-29. Besides, F-35 has no place in DCS, its way too advanced in all regards.

[Pilum]

20 minutes ago, Yeti42 said:

My first thought on hearing this was "Oh dear"  ED has been saying for years that they could not create modules for newer aircraft as they system information was still classified.  This apparently, is now not an issue.  What I suspect we will end up with is an approximation of an F35 based on limited public domain information and anecdotal evidence,  it will be no more than a community mod.   The reason I play DCS is for realism in the knowledge that that aircraft have been modeled in a highly accurate way, once you start fudging modules together based on  projected increased sales, you are on a rocky road to something akin to War Thunder, which don't get me wrong, has it's place and is probably fun to play, but not a flight simulator modeled to the level we have become accustomed to in DCS.  

Well put!

8 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

Its a 5th gen, not 6th.

What ever ED comes up with this plane, will be not 85% guesswork, but 99%. So, we better forget about it, and focus on 4th gen, and now upcoming Mig-29. Besides, F-35 has no place in DCS, its way too advanced in all regards.

Yes, you're right. I should have written 5th gen. My bad. That being said, I agree with your take on this.

 

PS: This auto-merge gets on my nerves. Is there any way to avoid it?

 

Edited January 21 by Pilum

[MAXsenna]

24 minutes ago, Yeti42 said:

The reason I play DCS is for realism in the knowledge that that aircraft have been modeled in a highly accurate way, once you start fudging modules together based on  projected increased sales

If they continue to make other modules "like the old ways", wouldn't you be happy and just completely forget that the F-35 ever existed? 

[ThePops]

  

28 minutes ago, Pilum said:

So maybe you should consider that there are people here who actually know a thing or two before categorizing them into gamers and Karen’s?

Sorry. As I said, it would be somewhat interesting to know who these complainers are. Those categories are only my impression based on what I have seen, mostly here on this forum. Not meant to be taken super seriously. But looking through the F-35 threads it is IMO hard to not get a similar impression.

I also know a thing or two, and so do many others here. You are not alone on that one. Among other stuff, I took part in field testing of the Penguin missile from Kongsberg in the mid-late 80s for instance, when the missile was adapted/upgraded to be launched from the F-16 (a small insignificant part, but nonetheless  ). I worked in the Air Force back then and I know what this "stuff" is made of.

Every time I start DCS on my PC it says: "For entertainment purposes only". I take that for what it is, and I'm sure ED takes it very seriously indeed, the entertainment part. Perhaps it's just me then. I don't take DCS "seriously" enough to fall flat on my back because of the introduction of the F-35. What ED has said is they have enough info to create this F-35 module in high fidelity for DCS. I am looking forward to that launch.

[JalilDoran]

1 hour ago, norman99 said:

If ED can't/won't implement accurate representations in these core areas for the F/A-18, when they have access to all the data and expertise they need, what makes anyone think they'll do a better job just making it up for the F-35?

Being charitable, the best reason to think so is that while the F-35 represents a huge potential cash cow, without these things it is just a flying iPad with AMRAAMs. 

It should be noted that "cool kid" War Thunder players (yes, let's go in for invidious generational stereotyping since it seems to be becoming common), who seem to be the notional market for the F-35, are used to a reasonably good level of battlefield simulation.

[Pilum]

2 minutes ago, ThePops said:

  

Sorry. As I said, it would be somewhat interesting to know who these complainers are. Those categories are only my impression based on what I have seen, mostly here on this forum. Not meant to be taken super seriously. But looking through the F-35 threads it is IMO hard to not get a similar impression.

I also know a thing or two, and so do many others here. You are not alone on that one. Among other stuff, I took part in field testing of the Penguin missile from Kongsberg in the mid-late 80s for instance, when the missile was adapted/upgraded to be launched from the F-16 (a small insignificant part, but nonetheless  ). I worked in the Air Force back then and I know what this "stuff" is made of.

Every time I start DCS on my PC it says: "For entertainment purposes only". I take that for what it is, and I'm sure ED takes it very seriously indeed, the entertainment part. Perhaps it's just me then. I don't take DCS "seriously" enough to fall flat on my back because of the introduction of the F-35. What ED has said is they have enough info to create this F-35 module in high fidelity for DCS. I am looking forward to that launch.

OK, thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. 

Well if you worked with the Penguin, you may have have known a Norwegian friend of mine by the name of Knut who worked with it. Surname begins with an S and if you met him you would have remembered it. But for obvious reasons I wont write out his name here in the clear. We studied together at the RIT University in Stockholm back in the days and he went on to work for Kongsberg. Unfortunately he passed away a few years back.

Anyway, sure, I agree DCS modules are for entertainment but if I spend time to learn a "cold start" procedure and system setups, operating the MFD buttons, interpreting displays, radar and RWR info and push buttons etc etc I want this to replicate how it's done IRL, not something cobbled together as a best guess because that info is still all classified. But each to his own, and I can see it from your angle as well only I would still have preferred a 3rd or 4th gen aircraft rendered with high fidelity as opposed to a F-35 guesstimate.

[MAXsenna]

27 minutes ago, ThePops said:

Among other stuff, I took part in field testing of the Penguin missile from Kongsberg in the mid-late 80s for instance,

Interesting. Maybe you've met my uncle. He was working for Kongsberg on the Penguin and took part in field test too.  

[ThePops]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

Maybe you've met my uncle. He was working for Kongsberg on the Penguin and took part in field test too.

Could be, don't remember any names. I worked as line crew in the F-16 that was used for testing for a month or two. There were lots of testing though, on and off over some time. Helping them download data, hooking up stuff with the missile etc and talking to these Kongsberg dudes, that's when I understood I had to get some real education to work on the cool stuff. So I ended up with a PhD in fluid mechanics/turbines  

[BIGNEWY]

2 hours ago, Yeti42 said:

My first thought on hearing this was "Oh dear"  ED has been saying for years that they could not create modules for newer aircraft as they system information was still classified.  This apparently, is now not an issue.  What I suspect we will end up with is an approximation of an F35 based on limited public domain information and anecdotal evidence,  it will be no more than a community mod.   The reason I play DCS is for realism in the knowledge that that aircraft have been modeled in a highly accurate way, once you start fudging modules together based on  projected increased sales, you are on a rocky road to something akin to War Thunder, which don't get me wrong, has it's place and is probably fun to play, but not a flight simulator modeled to the level we have become accustomed to in DCS.  

I would suggest waiting for the release which is a way off yet and trying it before passing judgement. 

We understand what people want in DCS and I think you will be happy with the result. 

If it is still not something for you that is not a problem, you can continue to enjoy DCS and all of the other great modules. 

thank you 

[dcn]

1小时前，Pilum说：

but if I spend time to learn a "cold start" procedure and system setups, operating the MFD buttons, interpreting displays, radar and RWR info and push buttons etc etc I want this to replicate how it's done IRL, not something cobbled together as a best guess because that info is still all classified.

This is what I want to say. Isn't the purpose of playing DCS to be as realistic as possible? If some procedures are imaginary, why should I spend time reading DCS manual to learn it?I studied like a nerd for a long time, but what I learned was a fictitious procedure?

[toni]

Hey Bignewy ! Question :  will you build another Super Carrier module  down the road ? Can you share if you have talks about ?

[Indyplumber]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

I would suggest waiting for the release which is a way off yet and trying it before passing judgement. 

We understand what people want in DCS and I think you will be happy with the result. 

If it is still not something for you that is not a problem, you can continue to enjoy DCS and all of the other great modules. 

thank you 

For me it's not a question of whether it's wanted or not, it's a question of whether this is worthy of spending ED's limited resources for development when you have so many "carrots" hanging out there for us.   I find myself rolling my eyes at your reveals lately because it just adds more roadblocks to the items we've been waiting on for so long.  The 20XX and Beyond showcases tend to be mostly "Beyond".

Take the F-35 crew and have them fix the clickable MPDs in the already released and paid for Apache for example.  This may seem silly but it's just an example of the multitude of unfinished and unrefined modules that linger for months on end.

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, Indyplumber said:

For me it's not a question of whether it's wanted or not, it's a question of whether this is worthy of spending ED's limited resources for development when you have so many "carrots" hanging out there for us.   I find myself rolling my eyes at your reveals lately because it just adds more roadblocks to the items we've been waiting on for so long.  The 20XX and Beyond showcases tend to be mostly "Beyond".

Take the F-35 crew and have them fix the clickable MPDs in the already released and paid for Apache for example.  This may seem silly but it's just an example of the multitude of unfinished and unrefined modules that linger for months on end.

The fixed wing team is not working on the AH-64D that is the helo teams. 

I understand your logic however if we didnt have the resources we would not have announced it. It is still a long way off yet, I am sure you are aware that projects like this do take a long time. 

-------------

And I know this is going to derail the thread so please keep it F-35A related here, off topic posts will be removed. 

19 minutes ago, toni said:

Hey Bignewy ! Question :  will you build another Super Carrier module  down the road ? Can you share if you have talks about ?

Hi,

I dont have any news there, the carrier version is the F-35C as far as I am aware, not the A. 

If it happens in the future we would of course let you all know. 

thank you 

[BIGNEWY]

31 minutes ago, dcn said:

This is what I want to say. Isn't the purpose of playing DCS to be as realistic as possible? If some procedures are imaginary, why should I spend time reading DCS manual to learn it?I studied like a nerd for a long time, but what I learned was a fictitious procedure?

Studying the manuals is all part of the fun, especially when it is your favourite aircraft. If the F-35A isn't something you will enjoy you can skip it completely. 

thank you 

[Ornithopter]

4 hours ago, Pilum said:

You and those who liked this post didn’t read what I wrote above did you? Because that post clearly explains why those challenges cannot be overcome for an in-service 6th gen aircraft like the F-35.

You've stated basically the same opinion about 10 times now, and you aren't going to leave it alone, are you?  As Bignewy said, if you aren't interested in it, then don't buy it.  Simple as that.  At this point it seems you're just concern-trolling the issue.

[Cab]

21 minutes ago, Indyplumber said:

For me it's not a question of whether it's wanted or not, it's a question of whether this is worthy of spending ED's limited resources for development when you have so many "carrots" hanging out there for us. 

This is my only reservation. I'd have preferred them work on any number of other jets (shout-out to the F-8 Crusader! I love you, man!) but I can see the F-35 will likely have more sale potential, especially with new players. I know I'll buy it just out of habit.  

[Revelation]

I'm a grey beard and I remember the early days with Jane's ATF and another developer that made JSF. I am very much looking forward to the F-35 coming to DCS. I am also hopeful of any core DCS improvements that may come about as a result of a player controlled stealth aircraft. 

Whether people are for or against the F-35 has nothing to do with their age or generation. It boils down to those who think ED can create an authentic experience and those that don't. Once you get passed that you have a crowd that are worried about the F-35 being "OP" as compared to the rest of the fleet. Mission Designer aside, some simply want to see something that can challenge the F-35 in the air. 

Finally you have those that are neither for, nor against the F-35's development, they just want more REDFOR FF modules. 

 

I would actually think us greybeards would be more into getting an F-35 module as many of us didn't think a quality combat simulation of the aforementioned aircraft would come out in our lifetime. 

Edited January 21 by Revelation