F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[MAXsenna]

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

Hey! I said that yesterday!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Jayhawk1971]

Experiencing that HMDS must be wicked in VR, I'd imagine. 

[Oban]

2 hours ago, Pilotasso said:

F-35 in DCS...wait...whaaaat? 

I'm sure the name of the forum heading might have given that away.

[rfxcasey]

1 hour 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 More Blufor with nothing to fight against except out of date low fidelity modules.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

Look on the bright side, this opens the door for all sorts of modules. Su-57 anyone?

[NineLine]

37 minutes ago, Citizen said:

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.

Trust is managed on knowing the facts, the fact is that we never said that we couldn't do AGM-65s on the F-6 because of lack of documentation, but because it was not the variant we are modelling. So in order to trust us, you first have to make sure you understand our reasoning for things. We have stated that we are looking at radios and INS for the F-5 for the version we are modelling. Anything else would be for a different version and would work more for a different variant altogether. 

So I am not sure what this has to do with trust, but more so a misunderstanding of our reasoning on the reasons for adding something or not. 

1 hour ago, Devil 505 said:

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.  

No, you are reading into what I have said. Please read the FAQ and you will know what to expect from the F-35, based on whether you want it or not, if you don't want it, it's okay. 

3 minutes ago, rfxcasey said:

Look on the bright side, this opens the door for all sorts of modules. Su-57 anyone?

Probably not a flyable Su-57, but I see the Redfor side looking brighter all the time. 

[Oban]

1 minute ago, nooneyouknow said:

One thing I'm sure ED will get right 100%. It'll be late, buggy, and over priced.

And you don't need to buy it.. imagine that, free will is an amazing thing.

[nooneyouknow]

1 minute ago, Oban said:

And you don't need to buy it.. imagine that, free will is an amazing thing.

Already stated I wouldn't.

[Oban]

Just now, nooneyouknow said:

Already stated I wouldn't.

LOL, so you're basically pissed off about a module you don't intend to buy... yeah sums up the DCS community rather well..

[Citizen]

8 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Trust is managed on knowing the facts, the fact is that we never said that we couldn't do AGM-65s on the F-6 because of lack of documentation, but because it was not the variant we are modelling. So in order to trust us, you first have to make sure you understand our reasoning for things. We have stated that we are looking at radios and INS for the F-5 for the version we are modelling. Anything else would be for a different version and would work more for a different variant altogether. 

So I am not sure what this has to do with trust, but more so a misunderstanding of our reasoning on the reasons for adding something or not. 

nullNot being able to model Mavericks due to a lack of documentation has been a common theme for over a decade.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Citizen said:

nullNot being able to model Mavericks due to a lack of documentation has been a common theme for over a decade.

That might have still been BST days or poor wording from a person who is not an English speaker. But it's not documentation it's the version we are modelling, period. If we decide to do a version that has Mavs one day, it would be possible, but it's simply not planned. 

[Df555]

17 minutes ago, nooneyouknow said:

Already stated I wouldn't.

What are you unhappy with if the f-35 doesn't affect the other modules? In fact, in theory it could even have a beneficial effect on the game, since it may require more accurate modeling of radar systems and stealth characteristics not only for the f-35 but for other planes as well.

Edited 8 hours ago by Df555

[MiGCap1]

To confirm my opinion, I asked one of our Luftwaffe Eurofighter weapons instructor pilots who is earmarked for the F-35 and plays DCS as well. His comment to choose the aircraft as DCS module: „Total bull<profanity>.“

[NineLine]

8 minutes ago, MiGCap1 said:

To confirm my opinion, I asked one of our Luftwaffe Eurofighter weapons instructor pilots who is earmarked for the F-35 and plays DCS as well. His comment to choose the aircraft as DCS module: „Total bull<profanity>.“

We won't be simulating a 2025 operational F-35, so it will be interesting to hear his thoughts when it releases. Thanks.

[MiGCap1]

Just now, NineLine said:

We won't be simulating a 2025 operational F-35, so it will be interesting to hear his thoughts when it releases. Thanks.

Will ask him.

[F-2]

 

I suspect this is the sorta think they are referring to in the FAQ

[hairbear29]

This could be the most realistic DCS module ever considering in real life the development of the F35 started in 1995 with the first flight in 2006 so 11 years to get out of early access seems pretty realistic 

[Dragon1-1]

Well, it'll be easy to build a cockpit for, at any rate. Especially for VR. Just stick a giant pane of acrylic onto the console, add the ten or so switches and buttons on the side consoles, the gear handle, and there you go.  

That said, it would be nice if there was actually a way to somehow bind an IRL touchscreen to the one in the F-35. It'll be the first touchscreen aircraft in DCS.

[Df555]

16 minutes ago, MiGCap1 said:

Will ask him.

But he can still continue to play in DСS as if the F-35 never existed. Leave it to those who would like to have it.

Edited 7 hours ago by Df555

[KarateCriminal]

Looking forward to the first screenshots to be released!

[Canada_Moose]

43 minutes ago, MiGCap1 said:

To confirm my opinion, I asked one of our Luftwaffe Eurofighter weapons instructor pilots who is earmarked for the F-35 and plays DCS as well. His comment to choose the aircraft as DCS module: „Total bull<profanity>.“

To confirm my opinion that I’m looking forward to this I asked myself as a C172 pilot that’s earmarked for an upgrade to a C182 if I thought this was a good choice for a DCS module.

I said that it was a good choice because I will never get to fly one in real life and it would be great to have a sim of one that is as good as ED can make it. Thank you. 

 

[sirrah]

30 minutes ago, F-2 said:

 

I suspect this is the sorta think they are referring to in the FAQ

Wonder if it's also possible to just use a finger on the touch screen to select and/or lock something. Using a slew control on the throttle seems like a lot more unnecessary fiddling around and waste of time.

But I suppose we'll probably not know for sure for quite some time.. Given all this stuff being classified as it is.

[F-2]

Just now, sirrah said:

Wonder if it's also possible to just use a finger on the touch screen to select and/or lock something. Using a slew control on the throttle seems like a lot more unnecessary fiddling around and waste of time.

But I suppose we'll probably not know for sure for quite some time.. Given all this stuff being classified as it is.

I’ll look to find more of these displays to see if any of them show that

[Devil 505]

36 minutes ago, NineLine said:

We won't be simulating a 2025 operational F-35, so it will be interesting to hear his thoughts when it releases. Thanks.

This comment is another example of misleading the community.  You suggest by default with this statement you are making an earlier version of the F-35, not a new LRIP production.  This is beyond misleading to your customers.  You could tell us you were making an Alpha variant pre-IOC and it would still be just as classified as one rolling off the line today.  There is NOTHING Eagle Dynamics has that can they have obtained that is remotely close to providing real details about this aircraft. All material including the video above that is promotional and released by Lockheed Martin is vetted and goes through a rigorous process before release to ensure nothing is being provided to the media that is going to give away trade secrets.  

Again, build the module, but don't proclaim to be building something off real world data you have obtained about the aircraft.  It's not. Plain and simple.  Comments like this lead those people who are not around these aircraft or have worked with them to believe somehow ED has obtained rights or privileges to produce parts of the F-35 when you have not.  This by definition is false advertising.  Something I never thought I would see ED step down to. 

[Mike Busutil]

DCS aircraft are the best out there. No one does aircraft modeling of systems and aerodynamics better in the video game world. ED will do another amazing job modeling the F-35. I look forward to the F-35 and all other aircraft eventually coming to our digital combat world. 

[BarTzi]

6 minutes ago, Mike Busutil said:

DCS aircraft are the best out there. No one does aircraft modeling of systems and aerodynamics better in the video game world. ED will do another amazing job modeling the F-35. I look forward to the F-35 and all other aircraft eventually coming to our digital combat world. 

The reason why is that they base their modules on real documentation. Do you see the problem with the F35 now? They have not, and will never acquire said information. It will be a clickable FC4 level aircraft at best. This is great, but let us know ahead of time please, and not two years into the future in a hidden youtube comment by Wags.

Edited 7 hours ago by BarTzi