F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[Tomcat388th]

As much as I love DCS and if its another chance to bring in more money thats where the priority will go.  I know bills and people have to be paid just seems like a lot of stuff get forgotten about once a new module gets started

 

[Canada_Moose]

27 minutes ago, Creampie said:

 

War Thunder is a PVP game

DCS is a PVE game that we are lucky to have server creators making PVP servers in.

From a PVP standpoint, He is correct. Its a gimmick. The EF alone tipped the "balance" or parity that was already heavily one sided"

Now here comes the F35... From what the game is based on (PVE) sure... Have your fun shooting mig29s & whatever. From a PVP standpoint with the only real red module in sight is a 9.12.... Well thats a little concerning. 

 

 

ok, a PVP arcade game. 
 

DCS is a single player game for me. Quite frankly, I couldn’t give two hoots about PVE, PVP or balance. 

im not sure balance would exist in a real works environment anyway. In fact, I know it wouldn’t. 

Edited January 18 by Canada_Moose

[Creampie]

5 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

DCS is a single player game for me. Quite frankly, I couldn’t give two hoots about PVE, PVP or balance. 

im not sure balance would exist in a real works environment anyway. In fact, I know it wouldn’t. 

Your single player love for the game is the PVE representation I am talking about. 

balance more so isn't the issue, Parity is. 

[Convoy]

The point is, is the module has to be of a certain level of realism and quality to be "worthy" of DCS. the bar shouldn't be lowered to allow a module. Because then all we're going to get is "that'll do" modules. 

[Czar66]

4 minutes ago, Convoy said:

Because then all we're going to get is "that'll do" modules. 

Can this be backed up by data and not just feelings?

What if the devs want to do a 35 anyways and the only other way is to wait 20+ years? In 20 years this module can have a massive head start too.

Seems too much fear for not enough substance. I don't recall any flight sim developer lowering their bars because of a product success, to the contrary actually.

[Convoy]

8 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

Can this be backed up by data and not just feelings?

What if the devs want to do a 35 anyways and the only other way is to wait 20+ years? In 20 years this module can have a massive head start too.

Seems too much fear for not enough substance. I don't recall any flight sim developer lowering their bars because of a product success, to the contrary actually.

Sure it can. Let's take for instance all the 3rd party devs that are laser scanning their modules. Think ED has laser scanned Fat Amy? 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Where'd you get the 85% figure?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

You know, screaming over the DMZ to first strike targets to make way for a ground invasion under cover of night would be awesome.

[Punkmonkey22]

25 minutes ago, Convoy said:

Sure it can. Let's take for instance all the 3rd party devs that are laser scanning their modules. Think ED has laser scanned Fat Amy? 

Like I said in the other thread, nobody is stopping the other devs from continuing this level of detail...

[Convoy]

Just now, Punkmonkey22 said:

Like I said in the other thread, nobody is stopping the other devs from continuing this level of detail...

And the point is, why would they put in countless more hours and costs, if they can just make a click cockpit FC plane, like this is going to be. There's no incentive for a company like Heatblur to raise the bar with modules like the Tomcat and Phantom, if the parent company is just going to yolo an F-35 together. 

[Czar66]

30 minutes ago, Convoy said:

Sure it can. Let's take for instance all the 3rd party devs that are laser scanning their modules. Think ED has laser scanned Fat Amy? 

So is it laser scanning the issue?

2 minutes ago, Convoy said:

There's no incentive for a company like Heatblur to raise the bar with modules like the Tomcat and Phantom, if the parent company is just going to yolo an F-35 together. 

Anything to prove this?

In one instance you points at 3rd party doing better than ED. In the other you say ED influences 3rd party to not go the extra mile like HB does. Confusing....

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

6 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

 

Anything to prove this?

In one instance you points at 3rd party doing better than ED. In the other you say ED influences 3rd party to not go the extra mile like HB does. Confusing....

The crowd interested in the F-4 isn't going to be the same crowd wanting an F-35. The only way this would be an issue is if we had to queue up to play and it just threw everyone together ala War Thunder or similar game.

This just isn't the case unless you're on an air quake server. In which case, the problem is you're on an air quake server.

[Leva80]

People should give episode 22 of the Mover and Gonky show a listen in which Wags was a guest and hear his take on developing an F35 module. He makes a series of comments. That episode aired Nov of 23. Interesting ED claims to be working on this for 2 years. Have a feeling Wags got sand bagged with this module and is prob not very happy either. Personally Im not irked as much by the module itself, but the dishonesty surrounding its projected fidelity.  

[Canada_Moose]

7 minutes ago, Leva80 said:

People should give episode 22 of the Mover and Gonky show a listen in which Wags was a guest and hear his take on developing an F35 module. He makes a series of comments. That episode aired Nov of 23. Interesting ED claims to be working on this for 2 years. Have a feeling Wags got sand bagged with this module and is prob not very happy either. Personally Im not irked as much by the module itself, but the dishonesty surrounding its projected fidelity.  

You have no idea whats changed since then. Only ED do. Why is the first thought of these online communities 'dishonesty' and 'conspiracy'?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Just now, Canada_Moose said:

You have no idea whats changed since then. Only ED do. Why is the first thought of these online communities 'dishonesty' and 'conspiracy'?

Because, gamers consume negativity like whales consume krill.

[Snappy]

1 hour ago, Czar66 said:

 

In one instance you points at 3rd party doing better than ED. In the other you say ED influences 3rd party to not go the extra mile like HB does. Confusing....

Its not confusing at all. The laser scanning example was to show that 3rd parties by now often put more effort into their modules than ED themselves (another example would be the depth of radar simulation in F-4, or the RWR simulation in the F-14)

The 2nd instance is the worry that EDs behaviour could lead to 3rd parties stopping or reducing such boundary-pushing developements in the future, because why put developement effort & money into it, when ED themselves abandon their full fidelity approach and simply shake&bakes a fantasy look-alike rendition of the F-35s avionics.. Because lets be serious, even with the some info being out there, it won't be a realistic full fidelity simulation of the F-35s capabilities. It will look cool and people will buy it. Thats it.

So 3rd parties could chose the same approach to future modules. Just get some basic info and cobble something together that mostly looks like the real thing. Get your money . Done.

 

Edited January 18 by Snappy

[Czar66]

39 minutes ago, Snappy said:

The laser scanning example was to show that 3rd parties by now often put more effort into their modules than ED themselves (another example would be the depth of radar simulation in F-4, or the RWR simulation in the F-14)

The 2nd instance is the worry that EDs behaviour could lead to 3rd parties stopping or reducing such boundary-pushing developements in the future

Notice how one argument conflicts with the other. Still is confusing.

/Edit*

40 minutes ago, Snappy said:

The 2nd instance is that EDs behaviour could lead to 3rd parties stopping such boundary pushing developements in the future

(again) Any evidence for this? ....while ED themselves are making the MiG-29 with laser scanning/photogrammetry?

Did ED needed to do a talking & managing AI for us to have Jester?

Did ED needed to do ground breaking radar techniques first for us to have the M-2000C and the F-15E radars? Also the little helmet visor thing?

Did ED needed to do first a 'Full Fidelity' supersonic aircraft with a dedicated FCAS for supersonic flight for us to have the MiG-21? It also had the first cockpit scan if I remember correctly and the first ground clutter in the radar.

40 minutes ago, Snappy said:

because why put effort&money into it, when ED themselves abandon their full fidelity approach and simply shake&bakes a fantasy look-alike rendition of the F-35s avionics.

That 100% not how this all works. At all. That's not how commercial flight simulation was born and it is currently managed....

All the modules are built from compromises and fairy dust in many places. The only valid argument on the whole thing is the ratio of this fairy dust. Sure, the 35 will have a lot...but if the devs have the passion and want to make it, so be it. I still have my F-4E, F-14, 16, 18... In my opinion: in no way this discourages 3rd party down the line either.

All 3rd party wants to be better than the other and mainly ED. That's how competition works and it is healthy...DCS W moved forward with that. Competition in quality is not really on the shortage, at all.

Edited January 18 by Czar66
Additions added to the MiG-21 example. Reason why it was confusing.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

12 minutes ago, Snappy said:

 

So 3rd parties could chose the same approach to future modules. Just get some basic info and cobble something together that mostly looks like the real thing. Get your money . Done.

 

That assumes that ED allows them the similarly relaxed standard.

But, really, let's not strawman this topic since there are a lot of concerns to be answered about it's development. Hyperbole isn't going to help us.

[Strannix]

@YoYo I think you don't understand why people complaining (at least hardcore players). There is no doubt that ED would be able to reproduce main avionic and different display menu, ramp start and most general things.

But a module isn't just only good cockpit or nice ramp start, especially in combat flight simulator like DCS. We are talking about the operational capabilities of the F35. this is probably one of the most sensitive aircraft in the world. So ED is trying to make us accept the fact that they are allowed to develop a public simulator from data of the aircraft that intelligence services from countries like Russia or China try to catch for one decade.

Even if there is a contract between ED and the USAF like they did with the A 10C, it's not comparable technology. So, things like radar performance in A/A or A/G will show nothing close to the real aircraft. flight performances would be the same approximation. Take the F16 for example, it is one of the most well documented aircraft publicly speaking and even with that kind of data, how long it takes to approach a good result considering the FM. 

Announced the fact that you've got feedback from pilots doesn't prove anything about you've got the good or accurate informations. Active or former pilots are still under law pursuit if they are disclosing classified informations like any military guys.

Last thing i want to develop is EW. F35 are intended to operate in contested area using there own EW suite without the needs of other assets. No needs to deepen the sensitivity of that kind of system. To be honest we can't even speak of EW realism in DCS the way it's modeled.

Now from a gamer POV, it's an attractive plane and for sure it will be easy to sell and most of the community doesn't care of realism. 

 To conclude, the most hardcore players must understand that DCS is a public simulator and not a professional one. So you will never have a full spectrum realism module for 80$. Even the pro simulator are not what you thing. ED must be more crystal clear about what they sell in term of realism. The most advanced the aircraft is, the farthest you are from the real aircraft capacities and you can applied that on everything like ground or airborne radar, missiles, stand of munitions...

[Convoy]

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

Its not confusing at all. The laser scanning example was to show that 3rd parties by now often put more effort into their modules than ED themselves (another example would be the depth of radar simulation in F-4, or the RWR simulation in the F-14)

The 2nd instance is the worry that EDs behaviour could lead to 3rd parties stopping or reducing such boundary-pushing developements in the future, because why put developement effort & money into it, when ED themselves abandon their full fidelity approach and simply shake&bakes a fantasy look-alike rendition of the F-35s avionics.. Because lets be serious, even with the some info being out there, it won't be a realistic full fidelity simulation of the F-35s capabilities. It will look cool and people will buy it. Thats it.

So 3rd parties could chose the same approach to future modules. Just get some basic info and cobble something together that mostly looks like the real thing. Get your money . Done.

 

Exactly. Perfectly said. 

[DD_fruitbat]

4 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Where'd you get the 85% figure?

 

16 hours ago, Convoy said:

Like many others, I have my concerns about the F-35 module. This post is 85% guesswork and hearsay. We don't need that in DCS. DCS' niche is realism. 

 

There, edited it so his figure is accurate. 

[Heimz]

I'm mostly against the F-35 in DCS, but the silver lining from this new direction is that new planes will be open for development.   

My dream list is to be able to recreate naval operations through the 60's-80's on the old flattops, while being able to operate and fly EA-6B's, E-1 and E-2 AWACS, EA-3D/KA-3D Skywarriors, A-5 Vigilante's, SH-3 Sea Kings, and all the other jets that cluttered the decks pre-and-post Vietnam.   

I also want those F-105's, F-106, F-104, and F-111's.  

 

 

[statrekmike]

16 hours ago, Convoy said:

Do an official poll and ask your community what they rather want. Current modules finished, Core work, asset packs, updated modules, or the F-35. Then put the people at work in that area. 

 

  This is an absolutely silly idea. Such a poll would only be seen by the more active, more vocal parts of DCS's enthusiast community. Likewise. It would only attract those who have strong opinions and see such a poll as a way to express said strong opinions directly. Either way, it wouldn't provide ED with any useful data about how much the playerbase as a whole would want such a thing. To be blunt. We are really just the audience here and we don't even know a fraction of what ED does about how well certain modules will do versus others. It is embarrassing when we pretend otherwise just to suit our own narratives.

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, Strannix said:

To conclude, the most hardcore players must understand that DCS is a public simulator and not a professional one. 

Exactly. Not everyone remembers this. Although DCS is based on real things as best as it can, it is not 100% like in reality in a simulator for home use. This is nothing new, by the way. In DCS we have many systems based on opinions, open sources and experiences or unifying some things. Maybe not everyone realizes? For example, 3 types of ECM in the F-16 (AN/ALQ-184 long, short, AN/ALQ-131), or AN/ALQ-144 in the Kiowa Warrior. There can be many such examples. DCS must be a certain compromise in this respect and you have to accept it, and if not, get a job in the army ;). I know that Team ED will do it as best as possible. However, I agree that going down this path should also go some new AI asset, additional, so that the actual conflicts experienced are more equal.

People used to enjoy something like this (F-117A Stealth Fighter) and it was a lot of fun . 

 

Edited January 18 by YoYo

[rajdary]

10 hours ago, YoYo said:

The other topic is closed, but I would like to draw attention to a rather important thing that appeared in another thread.

Contrary to appearances, the F-35 avionics are not at all complicated to recreate. The F-35A avionics are based on known solutions from 4th generation plus jets, transferred to the new machine. It differs in parameters, of course (some) and the very end of the playback and processing for the pilot, but this is not a revolution, but an evolution, which is based on a large logic from 4+ generations. In 2015 (wow, that's ten years ago, but I can say that now). I had the pleasure of testing Lockheed's F-35 simulator before a commercial contract was signed. I spent over an hour there, not only getting to know the avionics but also having a few dogfights, and although the experience of the whole thing was almost Matrix-like (especially 10 years ago), there was nothing surprising. Everything is reproducible, and a good example is India Foxt Echo model do MSFS, and before P3D. Of course, everything that is most interesting and important is under the hood and these are secret things, but who said that ED does not have some kind of contract, like it was with the A-10C back in the day, but of course he can't talk about it too loudly  (although of course the situation in the world is different now than it was with the simulator for military purposes like it was for the Warthog)? Another issue is that the work on the F-35 announced today does not mean that we will get the module right away, it will probably be the end of 2026 or even later. The obvious fact is that more documents and data will come to light during this time, and it will also be later. Anyone who has been associated with DCS for a longer time knows that sometimes modules received 3 FMs during this time and several avionics upgrades (a perfect example is e.g. M2000, whose avionics changed to a very large extent after receiving new materials). This means that there is nothing to worry about today, simply. I'm rather an optimist because the direction here is quite simple than some assume.

Fingers crossed and I hope we will recive more opponents for the other side (Gen 4 and 4+), especially as AI, so that even more equal conflicts can be created. Regards!

I agree with you that probably ED has some type of contract similar to the A-10C, and surely one of the things that back it up most, is the fact that the development time is ridiculously short….. release in 2026? I have been around for a long time in DCS, Since Lock On MAC. So we all know how much a module takes to be made. How can they make the most complicated module ever in DCS in only 2 years??

The answer can only be that its already cooked, just has to be served.

Edited January 18 by rajdary