F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks a reminder, if you want to give feedback keep it constructive. 

Rules can be found at the top of the forum. 

[ThePLAYGUE]

7 minutes ago, NineLine said:

You are assuming there is enough info on the Gripen, have you done research on either? 

I don't think that's my job... was stating it as an example for a plane that I assume would be more accessible...

[B2Blain]

I thought Wags in the past said he didn't want to simulate a stealth fighter because it would be somehow disclosing confidential information to adversaries, which I found odd. But whatever, I think its great that a company will try to simulate a 5th generation fighter. The sensor fusion and greater situational awareness will be interesting to see, as well as trying out different tactics. At some point it would be great if CCAs were integrated as well as the development of the carrier version with a Taiwan or East China Sea Map.

[BIGNEWY]

please ensure you are reading the FAQ 

 

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, ThePLAYGUE said:

I don't think that's my job... was stating it as an example for a plane that I assume would be more accessible...

Its our job, and we found enough info on the F-35, so that is why we are doing that opposed to a Gripen. Thanks. 

[Bikerguy302000]

41 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

Sadly you are probably correct. I suspect the hardcore crowd isn't enough to remain economically viable, and this probably wasn't they way the wanted to go, but had little choice to remain competitive against other games.

What other games simulate as accurate as DCS, I think it's more to do with customer base,  the current number of "hardcore" milsim customers doesn't seem to be enough to sustain ED in the long-term unfortunately. Interestingly enough a  guys did a study looking at just this a few days ago 

 

4 minutes ago, ThePLAYGUE said:

I don't think that's my job... was stating it as an example for a plane that I assume would be more accessible...

You assume that based on what ? 

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, Citizen said:

If there isn't sufficient data for GEN-X or ALE-50, then there isn't sufficient data for the F-35.

That's a silly statement, sorry. Especially with the ALE-50 already planned. 

[tora117]

The only reason this is possible is because DCS can't actually support or simulate the meat and potatoes of the F35, which is also the stuff that ED wouldn't be able to get info on.

So all it needs to do is drop bombs, shoot missiles, and look pretty, which can be done from public sources and videos.

That being said, 99.99% of the player base wont know what they are missing anyways

Edited January 17 by tora117

[Citizen]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That's a silly statement, sorry. Especially with the ALE-50 already planned. 

It's been 5 years.

[NineLine]

Just now, Citizen said:

It's been 5 years.

That doesnt mean its too classified. 

[Citizen]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That doesnt mean its too classified. 

I agree.  As I said, the primary driver of EDs decision-making doesn't appear to be classification or documentation, but rather on if the product has been sold already or not.

If you already have our money, then the requirements appear much tighter than if early access hasn't been opened yet.

[mason.zh]

I'm looking forward to the F-35A, but I have a few questions after reading the FAQ.

If ED has enough documentation to create the F-35A, how about the MH-60 or the Super Hornet? Shouldn't there be more publicly available documents for these aircraft—possibly even better documentation compared to the F-35A?

TBH the statement `These demonstrations were often filmed and provide great insight into the PVI of the F35` in the FAQ section is kinda sketchy for a FF ED module. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Just now, mason.zh said:

I'm looking forward to the F-35A, but I have a few questions after reading the FAQ.

If ED has enough documentation to create the F-35A, how about the MH-60 or the Super Hornet? Shouldn't there be more publicly available documents for these aircraft—possibly even better documentation compared to the F-35A?

TBH the statement `These demonstrations were often filmed and provide great insight into the PVI of the F35` in the FAQ section is kinda sketchy for a FF ED module. 

This is a very good point and I hope it's answered in the coming QnA.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, mason.zh said:

I'm looking forward to the F-35A, but I have a few questions after reading the FAQ.

If ED has enough documentation to create the F-35A, how about the MH-60 or the Super Hornet? Shouldn't there be more publicly available documents for these aircraft—possibly even better documentation compared to the F-35A?

TBH the statement `These demonstrations were often filmed and provide great insight into the PVI of the F35` in the FAQ section is kinda sketchy for a FF ED module. 

Yes, its not lack of data right now holding back the SH, not sure about the MH-60, but I believe the same. 

[ThePLAYGUE]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Yes, its not lack of data right now holding back the SH, not sure about the MH-60, but I believe the same. 

Just out of interest assume you had two undeveloped planes, A & B, for which you had the necessary information. How do you choose between making A or B and in what order? 

[FlankerFan35]

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

Yes, its not lack of data right now holding back the SH, not sure about the MH-60, but I believe the same. 

I'm a little confused, what could be holding back an 18E/F that wouldn't equate to dropping a planet in the way of what is on the F-35 like DAS, EOTS, APG-81 and F135? Thanks.

[LordOrion]

Guys, chill down!

If you feel the F-35 will be a "forged" module simply don't buy it.

There's no need to get out torches and pitchforks: let's let ED work and see what they are capable of doing, if the result is not to our liking no one is forcing us to buy it.

Edited January 17 by LordOrion

[Ogma]

The F-35 is such an odd choice.

Why bring this instead of a FF Su-27 if you're going to relax the requirement for the sources ? Why nothing for REDFOR ? Every time we bring the lack of counter part for modern aircraft we were told it was because of classification/ lack of documentation. Since it is apparently not an issue anymore, it would have been a logical choice... Plenty of "demonstrations often filmed and providing great insight" available too...

[NineLine]

Just now, ThePLAYGUE said:

Just out of interest assume you had two undeveloped planes, A & B, for which you had the necessary information. How do you choose between making A or B and in what order? 

Using the same examples, the SH and the MH-60, the reason is we are still finishing the Charlie, so starting a SH doesn't make sense in that regards. As for the MH-60, our helo teams are simply tied up with current work right now. 

Just now, Ogma said:

The F-35 is such an odd choice.

Why bring this instead of a FF Su-27 if you're going to relax the requirement for the sources ? Why nothing for REDFOR ? Every time we bring the lack of counter part for modern aircraft we were told it was because of classification/ lack of documentation. Since it is apparently not an issue anymore, it would have been a logical choice... Plenty of "demonstrations often filmed and providing great insight" available too...

A FF Su-27 is possible, but the team that would do that most likely would be the one nose deep in a MiG-29 right now. 

[Thump]

4 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

Guys, chill down!

If you feel the F-35 will be a "forged" module simply don't buy it.

There's no need to get out torches and pitchforks: let's let ED work and see what they are capable of doing, if the result is not to our liking no one is forcing us to buy it.

The distraction eats resources better spent elsewhere. It is costing the community, just not in money.

[NineLine]

Just now, Thump said:

The distraction eats resources better spent elsewhere. It is costing the community, just not in money.

That is simply not true. You can be not happy about it, doesn't mean someone else isn't happy. 

[Thump]

Just now, NineLine said:

That is simply not true. You can be not happy about it, doesn't mean someone else isn't happy. 

Both sentences have nothing to do with each other. And I never said he couldn't be happy...so THAT statement is simply not true.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Just now, NineLine said:

That is simply not true. You can be not happy about it, doesn't mean someone else isn't happy. 

This is very true, I'll probably skip on this at least to start, but at the same time? I can't help but feel this is one of those funny little white ants you see on your porch once in a while before it collapses.

If it's the catalyst for improving EW and RCS? Rad, we def need that. I'm hoping it is.

[Heli Shed]

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Using the same examples, the SH and the MH-60, the reason is we are still finishing the Charlie, so starting a SH doesn't make sense in that regards. As for the MH-60, our helo teams are simply tied up with current work right now. 

A FF Su-27 is possible, but the team that would do that most likely would be the one nose deep in a MiG-29 right now. 

So with all respect ole chap................ just 'when' do you expect to finish the Charlie?  it was after all released 30th May 2018.....

What is the estimated timeframe to complete the F35?  

Edited January 17 by Heli Shed

[NineLine]

Just now, Thump said:

Both sentences have nothing to do with each other. And I never said he couldn't be happy...so THAT statement is simply not true.

You think the resources spent somewhere on something you think you want, as opposed to an F-35, or maybe we need to pile more people on another project that is currently working. Its not how things work and not true. 

1 minute ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

This is very true, I'll probably skip on this at least to start, but at the same time? I can't help but feel this is one of those funny little white ants you see on your porch once in a while before it collapses.

If it's the catalyst for improving EW and RCS? Rad, we def need that. I'm hoping it is.

I think such a jet will bring about many new things to DCS, improvements and additions.

1 minute ago, Heli Shed said:

So with all respect ole chap................ just 'when' do you expect to finish the Charlie?

What is the estimated timeframe to complete the F35?  

The F/A-18C is pretty close now. Some of the things left holding it up are based on additions to DCS, like effects, etc. 

I have no idea on the F-35, most likely similar time frames to the F/A-18C and F-16C.