F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[Canada_Moose]

11 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

Those of us who know how classified this aircraft truly is know it cannot be modelled to any level of detail that would constitute a full fidelity game, let alone a sim. I'm not sure the general population truly understands this.

Lol.

'Those of us who know'

Anybody posting here in a niche forum for a niche game is fully aware. Do you really believe ANY of the modules are fully accurate? I don't for one minute. Then again, I also don't pretend to be a real fighter pilot just because I play DCS. In fact, there are many armchair pilots on this forum that think they know MORE than the guys that actually fly (or used to) combat aircraft in real life. Its laughable.

Edited January 17 by Canada_Moose

[wilbur81]

55 minutes ago, Chinooklad said:

 'Not sharing all that you have available' makes you appear extremely suspect. 

Nonsense... 

[Avenger31]

If they have already decided to work on the F-35, for which 70% of the data is probably secret, and for years they have been telling us that certain aircraft/helicopters or even weapons cannot be worked on due to a lack of available data, then it would be fair for them to patch up that lack of data for other aircraft with a desire for additionual money, as is the case now.

I think that with such a policy of lowering standards for the sake of additional money, it would be expected that in the near future we would get an upgrade of the F/A-18C to the F/A-18E/F, the F-16C block 50 to the F-16V block 70 or as standalone modules, I'm sure there are people like me who would pay for them.

They removed the AGM-154C from the F-16 because that weapon doesn't belong to the time frame in which our Viper was made. I understand, then lower the standard for that too and add a few more weapons that don't belong to the given time frame and that we would all like to use on the Viper. 

We also shouldn't forget the Red players, so with the existence of online documentation, YouTube airshow footage, we could make some more FF modules on the red side, so that we have at least some balance.

Now that we are in the period before receiving the Dynamic Campaign, in which logistics will be one of the key elements, with these standards of documentation from the internet, YouTube and similar sources, they could make the An-26 or An-30, they are not modernized aircraft that they need more than what they will make the F-35 with. 

[some1]

Personally, I don't mind having this aircraft added to the sim. It's a very interesting platform that should be quite fun to play in DCS, even if parts of it will be made up. And it's probably the the only way we're getting one for DCS in this decade, or the next. It should sell well and bring good money for ED, even if some hardcore simmers would skip the purchase, and server owners that care for balance will disable it.

Maybe it won't even be such a power beast in DCS, given that it probably won't have full sensors integration with other platforms like in real life. Also a lot of combat in DCS focuses on dogfighting, where fat Amy struggles anyway.

One problem I see is that DCS currently doesn't really have much of modern AI opponent units. No advanced versions of Sukhois and Migs, no modern Chinese aircraft, no 5th gen aircraft at all. No advanced SAM systems. Even the blufor side is lacking. And the pace at which ED adds new aircraft AI models (or updates the existing ones from the previous century) doesn't inspire much optimism. So quite possibly it will be another cockpit simulator without any battlefield environment to match its timeframe.

Edited January 17 by some1

[Sandman1330]

7 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

Lol.

'Those of us who know'

Anybody posting here in a niche forum for a niche game is fully aware. Do you really believe ANY of the modules are fully accurate? I don't for one minute. Then again, I also don't pretend to be a real fighter pilot just because I play DCS.

Well I am a real military pilot who works just down the road from and often on the base that's getting these, and who works with the pilots who are going to be flying these.  I'm aware of the security precautions that surround it, so I'm certainly more qualified than you.

You've also heard from an actual crew chief who worked on them and wasn't even given full access, and another military pilot who worked in an adjacent squadron who wasn't even allowed even the most basic information. What more do you need to be convinced?

Edited January 17 by Sandman1330

[Devil 505]

4 minutes ago, Oban said:

ED should feel honoured there's so many real F35 pilots in here who can point them in the right direction.

Funny you should say that. You actually have people in here commenting on this that worked/work with the platform, pilots, and companies that develop and operate the aircraft. All of these SME's that have commented in these forums over the past 24 hours have exponentially more knowledge on this aircraft than the open-source material ED has. But somehow ED believes they have obtained information career professionals did not have access to on the F-35 to make an accurate representation of the aircraft.

Again, the reason for the backlash is to criticize the lack of transparency and honesty that is being presented in the F-35A FAQ's and what has been stated by ED in these forums.  Do not present this module to the community as an accurate representation of the F-35A when you know without certainty it is impossible to do that.  Present the module as ED's best guess at what this platform can do. The biggest problem I have with this mentality is that is not why I fly DCS.  We come to DCS to escape developers pushing out aircraft that are not authentic to their real-life counter parts. ED prides themselves on a high level of authenticity and now they promise a platform they cannot deliver that on.  You do not need a forum full of F-35 pilots to explain this.  If I wanted to fly an unrealistic representation of a military aircraft, I would go somewhere else and NOT spend $70 on a module they guessed on. 

This is probably the most I have ever posted on the forums, but the ED really hit a nerve with this one.  Honesty, transparency, and integrity is fundamental in maintaining the trust of your customers.  All I have seen since this backlash started is beating around the bush about why they went this direction, not acknowledging the truth about what data they actually have to develop the F-35 and where it came from and chastising an F-35 maintainer for calling them out.  This is not the direction I want to see ED going because now the door has been opened to make any and everything that is out there.  There are times when you open pandoras box in a company and coming back from that bad decision becomes increasingly difficult.  

[2alpha-down0]

4 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

Lol.

'Those of us who know'

Anybody posting here in a niche forum for a niche game is fully aware. Do you really believe ANY of the modules are fully accurate? I don't for one minute. Then again, I also don't pretend to be a real fighter pilot just because I play DCS.

 

Of course they're not "fully accurate."  But they are reasonably accurate to a high standard, and that is their appeal.

This won't be.  This *can't* be.  That's the problem.

[Canada_Moose]

Just now, Sandman1330 said:

Well I am a real military pilot who works just down the road from and often on the base that's getting these, and who works with the pilots who are going to be flying these.  I'm aware of the security precautions that surround it, so I'm certainly more qualified than you.

First off, you have no idea what I do.

If you are a real military pilot you don't need to get your knickers in a twist over a simulated F35 in a game right?

[Supernova-III]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

No, that is not true. a Superhornet, these days, is very possible. Data on them is not an issue. Thanks. 

Could you please elaborate more on that? This guy is from ED I guess. Are you guys on the same page about what is possible and what is not? I'm a bit confused. For me it's rather great news that you're working on F-35. For me it means that you don't need secret data for making an aircraft and it's claimed to be realistic (whatever this mean). Which means that there's actually a lot you can do. For example, Su-25 (it's not classified though), F-18E/D, Su-30/35, and so on.

Edited January 17 by Supernova-III

[Sandman1330]

1 minute ago, Canada_Moose said:

First off, you have no idea what I do.

I can surmise it has nothing to do with military aviation. If it does prove me wrong.

[Devil 505]

3 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

Well I am a real military pilot who works just down the road from and often on the base that's getting these, and who works with the pilots who are going to be flying these.  I'm aware of the security precautions that surround it, so I'm certainly more qualified than you.

Well said brother! You have already had an F-35 maintainer on here speaking his mind about this bad call and got chastised for it, pretty sure an FMS customer from overseas with a Viper squadron that is working around the lightning was making similar comments, and several others who are all stating the same thing.  But somehow our expertise and input are found to be off putting and inaccurate.  

[Sandman1330]

3 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

First off, you have no idea what I do.

If you are a real military pilot you don't need to get your knickers in a twist over a simulated F35 in a game right?

Again, more to my point, I'm not against them making this. As I said above, I think it could be cool.

But advertising it as full fidelity calls into question the fidelity of the rest of their full fidelity modules, based on actual documentation. And yes, I do believe their other full fidelity modules are very accurate. Not 100%, maybe 80%. But the F35A can be no better than 20%, it's a big step down.

[Canada_Moose]

2 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

I can surmise it has nothing to do with military aviation. If it does prove me wrong.

No, you prove it!

Lord, give me a break. Its a game folks. Im out

[MTM]

Greetings and happy Friday!

The second I saw the F-35A appear at the end of the 2025 and Beyond video, I leaped out of my seat and yelled “F$&@ Yeah!” And I instantly knew (as I’m sure everyone did) that ED’s decision to go this route would be controversial. No surprise given how controversial the real-life F-35 has been.

I, for one, think this is amazing news! After the Kinney Interactive flop a decade ago, I thought we’d never get a fifth gen in DCS. I’m thrilled that this is finally happening!

I totally understand all the concerns about what an F-35 does to multiplayer, what it does to the already lopsided red vs blue balance, and what level of realism we’re going to get. Realism is obviously the main challenge. For my two cents, just because something is classified doesn’t mean it’s a dead end. Whether it’s the F-35 or anything else, take your best guess and let it grow and mature over time as info trickles into the public space. That’s infinitely better for realism than ignoring everything thats classified. 

As for Red’s lack of love, I hope you’re working on this ED. You guys got me thoroughly hooked on DCS a long time ago and I have no doubt you’ll keep me hooked for years to come, but we’re desperately in need of some Super Flankers, J-10, J-20…. Something more than the vanilla flankers and fulcrums we currently have. At least start with AI models of those jets. A well modeled AI controlled Su-35 would be a huge help right now.

I’m hugely excited to see the developments coming in 2025! Can’t wait to get my hands on the F-35! Thank you for doing this ED! My credit card is ready!

[Devil 505]

4 minutes ago, 2alpha-down0 said:

Of course they're not "fully accurate."  But they are reasonably accurate to a high standard, and that is their appeal.

This won't be.  This *can't* be.  That's the problem.

Wont be and Cant be are 100% accurate statements.  You have the ability right now to go find 100% of the information they will be using to make this module from people who speculate what the aircraft can do. In my opinion, that is not developing a module to reasonably accurate and high standards.  Its developing a module based solely off of their opinions and others who have no ties to the real thing.

If they say anything otherwise about how they have obtained information on the F-35 other than open source, its a lie or it what done illegally.  FACT. 

[Oban]

2 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

Well said brother! You have already had an F-35 maintainer on here speaking his mind about this bad call and got chastised for it, pretty sure an FMS customer from overseas with a Viper squadron that is working around the lightning was making similar comments, and several others who are all stating the same thing.  But somehow our expertise and input are found to be off putting and inaccurate.  

I know I would never get within 10 ' of a real F35, and never in a month of sundays be able to master the entire aviation suite, the F35 isn't my cup of tea, I've never flown a real harrier either, or a real F15E, or any DCS aircraft, but they allow me to feel what's possible on my PC, is it going to be 100% accurate, only a real F35 pilot would be able to make a comparison, I for one am willing to wait and see what DCS produces, if the feed back is good, and the armchair fighter jocks enjoy it, then I might buy it... 

I fly for fun, it's a hobby, it's not a game I lose sleep over because the rivet count is off, or the Ground radar isn't 100% like the real deal..

[rfxcasey]

Don't worry, by the time ED actually releases an F-35 it will be retired and all documentation declassified. But seriously, if ED was going to go this route then why not the F-22, I might have been able to get onboard with that at least. Thought I heard it said in the past they wouldn't do a Mitsubishi Zero sighting the lack of documentation, I guess we can look forward to one now? But what I'm really looking forward to is the full fidelity Su-57,  man that is gonna be awesome.

Edited January 17 by rfxcasey

[Beirut]

2 minutes ago, Oban said:

I fly for fun, it's a hobby, it's not a game I lose sleep over because the rivet count is off, or the Ground radar isn't 100% like the real deal..

 

Egg-xactly! 

 

Is it cool, is it fun, does it feel like a good representation of the real thing? That's what matters most. 

[Oban]

I might also point out, there isn't a single simulation/game on the market that can truly replicate actual real combat, not one.. and that includes all those FPS style games.

[lonewwolf]

No, that is not true. a Superhornet, these days, is very possible. Data on them is not an issue. Thanks. 

I might be mistaken about the aircraft in question, it was said on a “The Mover & Gonky Show” episode, last year where Wags was in… but the idea is the same, it was about an aircraft sill on active duty… like the F-35 is…

[lonewwolf]

(Double post Deleted)

[upyr1]

49 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

Electronic Warfare is barely modelled in DCS now. They will just make the RCS of the F35 smaller in the game.

Bottom line, if you dont like it or its not modelled to your liking, don't buy it. Its that simple.

Man, I remember it was much easier when we had vector graphics and playing F19, Falcon or Fighter Bomber on the Amiga. You got what you got and you were happy. Now its just a bunch of moaners and armchair 'experts' and 'lawyers'

No one back then promised to be as realistic as possible which is the DCS selling point. I would have rather have seen the F-35 as a Lock on module 

1 hour ago, dmatt76 said:

There could be other factor in all of this. It is possible that ED got a contract to develop F-35 sim for some military user, especially with so many new countries buying F-35, like earlier with A-10C II, and - possibly - Chinook. The DCS version could be similiar to A-10C - just dumbed down with stuff which is allowed / already known to show in a commercial product. 

sadly that aint the case 

[Coxy_99]

47 minutes ago, 84-Simba said:

So the F-35 is not suitable because you can't believe its characteristics will be right.

Ok.

But you have no problem with WWII and early Cold War planes.

It will hurt some egos but DCS ... is a game. Always been, always will be.

Thats the point why cant we have a flanker export if its a game?

[sirrah]

F-35 maintenance crew in my country is pretty much left in the dark on about how everything works in this aircraft. I spoke with a friend of mine early this week (an ex F-16 and later F-35 avionics guy) and he said they were told so little about the F-35, it just wasn't fun anymore to be in maintenance. Lots of maintenance crew leaving our air force because of it. The type course was only 3 weeks  (so.. pretty much nothing was shared..)

 

So, just like many others here, I was extremely surprised and totally confused on why ED suddenly moves from creating study level modules (backed up by declassified documents and SME's) to a "guesstimate" level module.

 

Sure, it's "just" a sim/game in the end, but at least before today, the modules in DCS were based on actual available/declassified data and SME's that could actually share valuable information.

I fear that this new venture by ED (creating modules based on assumptions, videos, some self-developed computed data models and perhaps a few nice ex pilot stories with no in depth classified info whatsoever) potentially moves my beloved DCS in a direction I wish it didn't go.

 

Not a rant. Just my 2 cents..

[Devil 505]

8 minutes ago, Oban said:

is it going to be 100% accurate

 

8 minutes ago, Oban said:

I fly for fun, it's a hobby, it's not a game I lose sleep over because the rivet count is off, or the Ground radar isn't 100% like the real deal..

It's not going to be 15% accurate. Plain and simple.  I am not knocking you for not wanting the most realistic sim. I come to DCS for the most realistic sim.  I am fully aware after growing up around the vast inventory of aircraft in DCS that it will never be 100% spot on, but they have come very close with their products to date.  I would safely say a solid 80 maybe even 85% with things like the legacy Hornet and A-10.  They are spot on with startup procedures, cockpit layout ect.... There is no way possible to do that with the F-35, not even close. 

People come to DCS for that authentic feel, realism.  If I wanted an F-35, your right, I would go fly it in MSFS where they have a beautiful "representation" of that aircraft.  DCS is a simulator priding themselves on accuracy. You will not even come close to simulating the F-35, which again in my opinion, degrades the company in what they pride themselves on.  

Again, the criticism is on ED's honesty about the data they claim to have and their core values of providing and authentic representation of a military aircraft as close as they can get. If 5 or 10% is as close as they can get, why is it even an option on the table for the next module?