F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[I_Gamer]

2 hours ago, Canada_Moose said:

Hornet, A10 - they got the actual sounds. Boeing even helped with the Hornet. They clearly have all the permissions and project plan lined up. Why don't you just do them a favour and let them show what they can do?

Ding, ding, we have a winner!

I’d love for a ED / E19 collab on the 35. We have a ton of high quality resources already, why not use them? The on-release Hornet and Viper sounds were less than ideal, and also synthesized in some ways. How about just pushing the boundaries in all aspects of this module, not just what’s possible with systems and flight model. Most of the community prefers our take on the audio anyway, would be a cool concept if we could work our magic together with ED.

The big difference here is that Boeing is not Lockheed Martin. LM are very strict, speaking from personal experience, and I HIGHLY DOUBT ED are working with them on the project, that would be a massive conflict of interest for LM. 

Boeing will “work” with anyone, for extreme amounts of money. Also speaking from experience.

[Benom8]

1 hour ago, Sandman1330 said:

So you'd have FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Each with their own standards of documentation, etc

This would be a great idea. It would open up a lot of possibilities for modules and help us know what we're getting.

[EA-18G_BlockII]

ok so since we will get to fly F-35 eventually, that means i cant fly it if i set the weather in Mission Editor to Rain or worse? /s

[MAXsenna]

I’d love for a ED / E19 collab on the 35. We have a ton of high quality resources already, why not use them? The on-release Hornet and Viper sounds were less than ideal, and also synthesized in some ways. How about just pushing the boundaries in all aspects of this module, not just what’s possible with systems and flight model. Most of the community prefers our take on the audio anyway, would be a cool concept if we could work our magic together with ED.
The big difference here is that Boeing is not Lockheed Martin. LM are very strict, speaking from personal experience, and I HIGHLY DOUBT ED are working with them on the project, that would be a massive conflict of interest for LM. 
Boeing will “work” with anyone, for extreme amounts of money. Also speaking from experience.

Match in heaven! Maybe even trickle down to the Hornet and Viper as well? Perhaps down the line...

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[TheMightyMirage]

13 hours ago, NineLine said:

Well we can use the A-10C as an example, which was closer to a study-level sim because of the access we had to it and the fact we were hired to do one for the military. The F-16 or F/A-18C while still very very detailed, we did not have the same access or permissions. So the standards are still the same, but what is achievable could vary depending on the system, model, FM, etc. Even down to WWII aircraft this same thing happens. 

no, we are not dropping our standards, yes we are making a module that will be one of the most advanced in DCS, when it releases set up your server, you one one side with your F-35 against 50 others in red fighters, and tell me how you beat everyone. 

Ru government would not let us make even poor guess at the Su-57, same with the F-22, there is nothing really out there for that. You are not looking at it one an individual aircraft basis, I can't explain it any more basic to you guys. 

NL you'd be surprised by what you can find on the Raptor. I've found a "manual" with a Raptor cockpit explaining what every button does with all the pages of the MFDs. The HUD pages and symbology is what we don't have, although we have an IEEE document on the Raptor's development (with a lot of radar reference). Pretty sure you'll find stuff for a flight model from NASA docs on the -22's performance and thrust vectoring.

[nooneyouknow]

Great. More Blufor with nothing to fight against except out of date low fidelity modules. And a piece of crap at that. First time I've actually said "no-buy" to DCS

[Df555]

I think this discussion should be in a separate thread. Personally, I, like almost everyone else on the planet, know almost nothing about the real stealth capabilities of the F-35. How big an advantage does this give in a real fight? How difficult is it to detect with different types of radars, etc. And of course, the most important thing is how all this can be implemented in the DСS and how reliable can it be. If you have any assumptions or data, let's discuss them here.

[Gunfreak]

27 minutes ago, nooneyouknow said:

Great. More Blufor with nothing to fight against except out of date low fidelity modules. And a piece of crap at that. First time I've actually said "no-buy" to DCS

Blufor has been fighting out of date crap since the late 80s in real life. Even stuff like Su27 and MiG29 was no real challenge vs F15C in early 90s.  And redfor is still using MiG29A models and early Su27, hell even MiG21s are used in some numbers. 

And stuff like Su35 or MiG35 can't really be compared to F35. Mabye F16 block 70. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Gunfreak

[Guille H. Mono]

I bought the Chinook in the state it was released  because it really felt like ED needed it. Then got burnt with Afghanistan - complained and got bullied out of any ED Early Access product for good -  to then find out there was really something off when a 'more talented' team released Iraq without the awfull visual issues of Afghanistan.

I don't know what to think anymore. It just feels like a stunt and adds more uncertainty.

Edited 10 hours ago by Guille H. Mono

[TheMightyMirage]

10 minutes ago, nooneyouknow said:

Great. More Blufor with nothing to fight against except out of date low fidelity modules. And a piece of crap at that. First time I've actually said "no-buy" to DCS

Redfor's latest aircraft can barely contend with F-35s at all. The Su-57 in real life is probably more comparable to a Typhoon or probably better than a Typhoon, but nowhere close to the -35 anyway, so even if we HAD latest redfor, it wouldn't matter. Let's not forget the F-35A was inducted in 2016.

[dali]

There are too many things out of sync in DCS right now. If you try to make DCS more of a "game", you should start introducing more things that bring life into sim, like quick missions with full lively airport. Maybe the dynamic campaign will do that. We don't know. There are planes without proper maps (F-86, MIG-15, F-4...), there are things missing (AMEDooley gave quite a complete list of that). If you are thinking of pissing off "rivet counters", you have already done that. And expecting that basically Russian company will get full access to F-35 systems is simply laughable, sorry. You either decide to have two different products - one light, one full package, then tell us. Just don't mix two extremes together, because it seems you are slowly loosing crowd. Been with you from Flanker and LOMAC days

[metzger]

At least it will be easy to make a home cockpit - just put a big touch screen, and you are done

Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk

[Hammer1-1]

21 minutes ago, nooneyouknow said:

Great. More Blufor with nothing to fight against except out of date low fidelity modules. And a piece of crap at that. First time I've actually said "no-buy" to DCS

what makes you think the F-35 is a POS? I can very much assure you that it is not.

[Df555]

I see too much pessimism in this thread. Of course, no one expects the F-35 to be anywhere near 100% accurate, like almost any module in the game. But let's not forget that DСS is a long-lived project. As time goes on, more data on the F-35 will become available and it can be implemented. Even in a year, more refined data will probably appear. Even the F-16 and F/A-18 are still being developed. There is no need to demand that the F-35 will appear already completed.

Edited 10 hours ago by Df555

[Devil 505]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

That is also an aspect people leave out. If we did only aircraft we could model 100% 1:1 we would have a very slim line up, and the Ka-50 and A-10C would not exist. 

So, this is a confirmation for the reason ED is going with the F-35A.  Not to recreate an authentic aircraft, but to keep DCS funds flowing at a steady pace and entice an audience that is not as much milsim as the current.  I understand that.  I would actually support you guys with the F-35 if that was the message being driven.  But is not.  Just be honest with the community and say a less authentic representation of a 5th Gen Fighter you think will sell better than say an older aircraft produced at the current authenticity level. 

It is the presentation ED is putting out there that insinuates this module will be done to the standards of the previous modules when it is not possible.  Again, HONESTY with the community goes a long way.  

[toni]

Ok, ok  lets see this Lightning II, Ive got an idea behind maybe by 2028 or so;

F-35B/C

USS America class LHD

USS Gerald R Ford  CVN 78  SC Modules

[MA_VMF]

The principles ran out when the money was needed. You can also turn into War Thunder.

[NAM]

It would be very interesting to see the polling among DCS users  - yes/no to fith gen coming to the sim.

After this euphoria to the announcement, some experienced user would create one in for this forum.

[2alpha-down0]

9 minutes ago, Df555 said:

I see too much pessimism in this thread. Of course, no one expects the F-35 to be anywhere near 100% accurate, like almost any module in the game. But let's not forget that DСS is a long-lived project. As time goes on, more data on the F-35 will become available and it can be implemented. Even in a year, more refined data will probably appear. Even the F-16 and F/A-18 are still being developed. There is no need to demand that the F-35 will appear already completed.

 

So pay $70-80 for a barebones guesstimated module, with further undefined features that may be implemented based on documentation that may be released at some non-descript point in the future?  Assuming they feel like doing that at all, and don't just abandon it declare it "feature complete"?

Good luck with that.

[Citizen]

The entire platform of DCS live and dies on trust.

Trust that EA products will be delivered,
Trust that authenticity will be maintained.

When a weapon, system, or item is removed as an early access deliverable, we could trust that while it was not great to see a feature we paid for be sidelined, at least it was in service to authenticity.

We just spent months being told that the F-5 couldn't possibly have access to the AGM-65 because of a lack of documentation, despite clear indicators that the F-5 refresh would be a much more moving value proposition if ED would make a best guess on how the radar screen can be switched to MAV.  But it made sense, DCS is a platform we trust not to make things up.

The F-35 violates that trust both ways.  I can't trust you will maintain the same authenticity that says the F-5 simply cannot have AGM-65s, which is fine except you'll continue to enforce that same requirement when you do not wish to do the work, even if we've purchased a module that advertised that feature on a store page.

Edited 9 hours ago by Citizen

[DA_FLY]

49 minutes ago, TheMightyMirage said:

Redfor's latest aircraft can barely contend with F-35s at all. The Su-57 in real life is probably more comparable to a Typhoon or probably better than a Typhoon, but nowhere close to the -35 anyway, so even if we HAD latest redfor, it wouldn't matter. Let's not forget the F-35A was inducted in 2016.

I heard this about leopards, abrams and f-16

[Canada_Moose]

Why does a module have to be 100% authentic or DCS becomes War Thunder? Seems a ridiculous statement.

When Falcon first appeared on the Amiga I don't recall anyone thinking it was an arcade game? Even though the systems and realism of the F16 were not entirely there it did NOT turn Falcon into an arcade game. Neither will this F35 turn DCS into an arcade game.

Edited 9 hours ago by Canada_Moose

[mgabriel93]

3 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

I'll just re-iterate what I think is my main point, since it may have gotten buried in the personal back and forth.

There's a pretty simple solution to the question of "cheapening" the full fidelity brand. Give this (and others like it) a new tier, new branding. Call it "high fidelity." 

So you'd have FC4 -> high fidelity -> full fidelity. Each with their own standards of documentation, etc.

• FC4 - As it currently is, simplified systems, non-clickable cockpits.
• High fidelity - Clickable cockpits, deep systems simulation, but understanding many reasonable assumptions / educated guesses were made to fill in gaps in documentation. May not represent the full and true capabilities of the modelled aircraft.
• Full fidelity - As it currently is. High bar for available documentation, top tier standard of realism.

Opening up this new "high fidelity" brand would open the door to a whole new ecosystem of possibilities that we haven't had access to before. It could be very good for DCS, bring in new players, new revenue streams.

Imo this would be a perfect strategy in terms of PR and marketing. @NineLine, please, take this as a constructive feedback for what you guys are going to name this category.

You will have a group of angry "it's a sim not a game" people complaining, but at least the other 98% of the players would understand what they're purchasing.

[Df555]

5 minutes ago, 2alpha-down0 said:

 

So pay $70-80 for a barebones guesstimated module, with further undefined features that may be implemented based on documentation that may be released at some non-descript point in the future?  Assuming they feel like doing that at all, and don't just abandon it declare it "feature complete"?

Good luck with that.

Everything you wrote is a common practice of releasing and supporting modules, more or less. Adding new features and updating old ones. Just don't buy it if you don't like it. DСS is not an online mmo game. You don't lose anything without f-35. It won't affect other modules or reduce their quality. And if you want to play online, choose a server without f-35.

I find it extremely hard to believe that ED would abandon it. It will probably be one of the most popular modules.

[BarTzi]

@NineLine Can you guys consider adding multiple types of modern high-digit sams and EW radars (S-400 for example, or more variants from Iran and China), when you launch the F35, to give it a more fitting, challenging environment to operate in?