F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

[Wawar]

The team is happy with the research they have done, and their ability to make a DCS level simulation of the F-35, it will not be 100% accurate, we are not claiming that. 

Hello Nineline.

The question is not whether the aircraft meets the DCS standard or not. The question is whether the DCS standard has been lowered to make it possible to create this module.

Because that's what the people complaining here don't want: to see the modeling standard lowered.

And since the fidelity level between ED modules and third-party modules is already disparate, the -35 announcement is everything but reassuring.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Wawar said:

Hello Nineline.

The question is not whether the aircraft meets the DCS standard or not. The question is whether the DCS standard has been lowered to make it possible to create this module.

Because that's what the people complaining here don't want: to see the modeling standard lowered.

And since the fidelity level between ED modules and third-party modules is already disparate, the -35 announcement is everything but reassuring.

Nothing has been lowered, but standards can be different between aircraft, certain aspects of an FM might be tuned to not step on the wrong toes, where as another aircraft we can go full send on it. The -35 is going to be difficult, it will be a lot of work but it will be a good DCS rendition of the F-35, full stop.

[AMEDooley]

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

Look I don't want to fight with you on this anymore, it would be cool if you wanted to help out with things you could talk about, even testing it might be cool, but you are so negative, and I get it. This is a game, we are making a new product for it, it will be the most realistic F-35 out there, even if it is not near 100%. That is what I have for you, I do not doubt your knowledge and experience with the -35, and that is very cool. But we don't share everything we have, everything we are doing and everything we know or have contacts for. So we can keep going back and forth, or we can wait and see. 

I think the point that I’m probably conveying poorly is that there are so many other things the community has been asking for, you’ve said you’re working on, and haven’t delivered on (ATC, DTC, DC, Comms, Weather, sensor integration, etc.). Those will make the game far better for everyone, since they affect everyone. And I know that you have many different groups working on different things, but this still takes away from the finite resources you have to work on these far more important things (IMO) for something you can’t truly deliver, and frankly, few people really want. I mean what good is the 35 when sensor integration is already poor? But realistic ATC coupled with a Viacom style voice recognition would be huge, or weather that dynamically changes. Hell I’d take it if you could make the AI turn less aggressively from one WP to the next. This feels like a step back from what I, and the majority of players I know, really enjoy about DCS. I mean I think the F-15C FF is a great thing. It makes way more sense and is something I know you can deliver to the standard you set yourselves to.

[Wawar]

Nothing has been lowered, but standards can be different between aircraft, certain aspects of an FM might be tuned to not step on the wrong toes, where as another aircraft we can go full send on it. The -35 is going to be difficult, it will be a lot of work but it will be a good DCS rendition of the F-35, full stop.

Thanks for your answer.

So, if the said « standard » can varies between aircraft, it doesn’t really exist.

The problem is that people here are used to a certain standard of fidelity, and they consider that if this standard can't be reached with a certain aircraft... They'd rather not see resources allocated to the development of said aircraft, in favor of another aircraft that could reach the desired community standard.

Anyway, yeah sure, we’ll always have the wallet vote. But seeing DCS losing it’s edge is not what we wanted.

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, AMEDooley said:

I think the point that I’m probably conveying poorly is that there are so many other things the community has been asking for, you’ve said you’re working on, and haven’t delivered on (ATC, DTC, DC, Comms, Weather, sensor integration, etc.). Those will make the game far better for everyone, since they affect everyone. And I know that you have many different groups working on different things, but this still takes away from the finite resources you have to work on these far more important things (IMO) for something you can’t truly deliver, and frankly, few people really want. I mean what good is the 35 when sensor integration is already poor? But realistic ATC coupled with a Viacom style voice recognition would be huge, or weather that dynamically changes. Hell I’d take it if you could make the AI turn less aggressively from one WP to the next. This feels like a step back from what I, and the majority of players I know, really enjoy about DCS. I mean I think the F-15C FF is a great thing. It makes way more sense and is something I know you can deliver to the standard you set yourselves to.

As I said in the other thread, the guys working on an F-35 would not be doing ATC, DC, Comms, Weather, etc. Even DTC would be more a programmer with a design doc than a aircraft specialist. Like the F-35 or not, think we can do it or not, its not hurting anything we have planned in those other areas. You can get mad about thinking we cant pull it off, but you cant get mad thinking its blocking ATC or other things you listed. 

[diego999]

So you're dropping your realism standards only to make a module that will be completely out of place in DCS, as every red asset it's going against is 20+ years older.

If you can pull data out of your posterior to make the F-35, you can surely do the same with the Su-57, F-22, Su-30SM, J-20 and others. Right?

 

 

 

 

[Oban]

Just now, AMEDooley said:

Dude, it won’t even be 30%. I’m sorry man. I am not doubting the hard work you’ve put into it, but it won’t be realistic at all. Again I’d rather other, far more important things worked on and finished. I love the Hornet you’ve made, it’s pretty close to what I remember working on even down to the sound of the engines coming on line. But the 35 is a horse of a different color. And yes in case your wondering I did work on both aircraft for two different branches.

There isn't a sim out there anywhere in the world that truly represents realism, name one sim that if you fly into an object at 120MPH you actually die?

Nme one sime where you have to do a pre flight walkaround, and remove all RBF tags... ther isn't one, that's realism.

DCS is a game, it's not a substitute for the real thing, what it allows is for people who would never ever become real fighter pilots an alternate world in which they are pilots for however long thay can sit down for... why don't you support others being virtual pilots?

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, Wawar said:

Thanks for your answer.

So, if the said « standard » can varies between aircraft, it doesn’t really exist.

The problem is that people here are used to a certain standard of fidelity, and they consider that if this standard can't be reached with a certain aircraft... They'd rather not see resources allocated to the development of said aircraft, in favor of another aircraft that could reach the desired community standard.

Anyway, yeah sure, we’ll always have the wallet vote. But seeing DCS losing it’s edge is not what we wanted.

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. 

1 minute ago, diego999 said:

So you're dropping your realism standards only to make a module that will be completely out of place in DCS, as every red asset it's going against is 20+ years older.

If you can pull data out of your posterior to make the F-35, you can surely do the same with the Su-57, F-22, Su-30SM, J-20 and others. Right?

 

 

 

 

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. 

[AMEDooley]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

As I said in the other thread, the guys working on an F-35 would not be doing ATC, DC, Comms, Weather, etc. Even DTC would be more a programmer with a design doc than an aircraft specialist. Like the F-35 or not, think we can do it or not, it’s not hurting anything we have planned in those other areas. You can get mad about thinking we cant pull it off, but you cant get mad thinking it’s blocking ATC or other things you listed. 

So why have we not seen these things come to fruition as of yet? If the FF 35 takes two years of research and your hope for a year or two for development time doesn’t affect those other areas, why have we seen them completed? Honest question, I’m not trying to be a troll. 

[Oban]

Just now, Wawar said:

Thanks for your answer.

So, if the said « standard » can varies between aircraft, it doesn’t really exist.

The problem is that people here are used to a certain standard of fidelity, and they consider that if this standard can't be reached with a certain aircraft... They'd rather not see resources allocated to the development of said aircraft, in favor of another aircraft that could reach the desired community standard.

Anyway, yeah sure, we’ll always have the wallet vote. But seeing DCS losing it’s edge is not what we wanted.

95% of the community fly for fun, the 5%  hardcore, flight suit and helmets and full simpit crew are a minority, and even then, with $$$$$$$$ worth of rig, and gear, it's never ever going to be like flying the real thing.. fidelity shcmidelity, I fly for fun...you should try that too... 

[Tank50us]

Alright... I've been seeing A LOT of people whining about the F-35s announcement, and it's made me decide to make this post.

Now, disclaimer: I don't work for LM, I'm not in the USAF, and I don't work for ED. I'm a random civilian that plays DCS just like most of the people in this forum.

My views on the introduction of the F-35 is that while, yes, she's gonna be hard to properly balance (being a stealth aircraft and all), that is more for us to worry about, and not ED. If you're playing on a Cold War server, or a mid-90s server, you'll never see an F-35 on your RWR. The people working those servers aren't likely to include them, unless they reduce the weapons and make them basically play F-117s.

Modern servers are likely to only include a handful, but at the same time, are just as likely to have some on the RedFor side playing Felons or Checkmates.

Now, to answer the big question everyone keeps asking: "How does Eagle Dynamics have enough information to model an F-35?" Towit:

1. It's not some rare plane with only a handful that "Don't Exist". There's been over a thousand produced to date.
2. It's a very  well known plane right now thanks to various figures chiming their opinions on it.
3. It's a widely exported aircraft as well, with a number of allies already operating them.
4. As stated by ED themselves, the information they need to work on it is out there, even if it's not 100% accurate.

Now, for those complaining about point 4, and the level of accuracy that can be achieved... If you hold that opinion, please chill. NONE of the modern aircraft in DCS are 100% accurate to their real-world counterparts. They're certainly close enough that in many cases we could hop into the pilots seat and start the plane up. But the only sims out there that are 100% accurate to the real thing are the ones actually used by real world air forces (because they kinda have to be).

"How did ED get the information at all?" Well, I would wager that with the number of customers buying F-35s, it's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin was having issues keeping up with the demands for simulators as well. Seeing as DCS is as realistic as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if LM called Nick up and asked if ED could make a sim, with the added bonus of being allowed to make a module for us to play with in the process. But that's my theory.

"Why can't ED add (insert RedFor jet)?" because where in the US, there's no law preventing them from making it. China and Russia are a bit more strict in how their kit is portrayed. For example, in Russia, right now, you can be put in prison if you claim that the T-34 is anything but the best tank of WW2 (news flash, it sucked. Shermans are better in every way. Change my mind). The US has no such law, and so long as the OEM is ok with it, you can feature it however you wish.

So yeah. Me? I'm perfectly fine with the F-35A coming into DCS. I would've preferred the C, as I'm a Navy brat and like what the C offers, but I'll take the A. Heck, my reasoning for making this post was purely to shed some positivity here. I've seen an F-35 being put through its paces at a local airshow, and while I am no expert, I can say that it's leaps and bounds beyond what we have otherwise. No other aircraft (with one exception) can purposefully enter a flat spin like the F-35 can and just casually recover like it was nothing.

Now... what are my expectations? Well...

• I don't expect its stealth to be true to the real thing. I expect that if I was in formation with an F-16 and we were approaching an S300 site, obviously the F-16's gonna be seen first, and shot at first. But the S300 likely won't see me until I'm like 15-20nmi away, and likely only because I just chucked a bunch of SDBs at it.
• I do expect its maneuverability to be in line with the real thing. It won't be as maneuverable as a Raptor or Su35, but it doesn't need to be. Frankly, if a Lightning is having to maneuver that close to an enemy, something's gone horribly wrong.
• I expect its datalink screen to almost look like the F10 map, because that's basically what it's got. Seriously, the F-35 can take information from ground, sea, and air assets and get a complete picture of the battle space. An F-35 pilot doesn't have to ID where the blues are, they know where they are to a degree that they can avoid Blue on Blue situations to levels even the Hog can't touch.
• I do expect that the cockpit will be pretty sparse. A big screen, a couple of backup instruments, radio and navigation switches, controls, and start-up switches, and that's it. There's not much to an F-35 cockpit, and the same holds true to the external model. So with that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're able to pre-order it by the end of this year, or early next. The only real challenge I see for ED is replicating the touch-screen functionalities as all the weapons the F-35 can carry are already in game, and the HUD functionality already exists in the JHMCS (just in reverse).

Overall, I see good things on the horizon with the F-35. If you agree, let's hear it. If you think I'm a corporate Kiss-A... well, try to prove it.

Tank out.

[NineLine]

10 minutes ago, AMEDooley said:

So why have we not seen these things come to fruition as of yet? If the FF 35 takes two years of research and your hope for a year or two for development time doesn’t affect those other areas, why have we seen them completed? Honest question, I’m not trying to be a troll. 

ATC has a full design doc, but also we now started looking at other cool technologies that have come along, MSFS is doing some cool things here. The Supercarrier is a test bed for better tech, but ATC on land will be a huge task. 

DTC is in full development, keen eyes would have seen this in one of Wags videos.

DC has had a number of dev reports, you should have seen it before the F-35 featured heavily in the video.

Many of these things required Multithread and performance improvements, without all that extra overhead we would have crushed performance with a lot of these things.

But again, not related to any aircraft development. 

Voice chat is very cool, and I am not sure why you are ignoring it, but a lot of work went into that and is still being refined. Same with what we have done with weather, its not done but what we have done the team is very proud of and has worked very hard on.

[Springfield-902]

14 minutes ago, Oban said:

95% of the community fly for fun, the 5%  hardcore, flight suit and helmets and full simpit crew are a minority, and even then, with $$$$$$$$ worth of rig, and gear, it's never ever going to be like flying the real thing.. fidelity shcmidelity, I fly for fun...you should try that too... 

dont forget bout belt and eject seat too.

[NineLine]

Just now, Springfield-902 said:

dont forget bout belt and eject seat too.

I have a nice HOTAS and a piddle pack.

[Huilque151]

Hello ED, first of all the 2025 & Beyond video was incredible, the DCS cinematics are getting better every day, the F15C Announcement was what I expected even though I didn't see it coming! and the announcement of the F35 wow!! But a few seconds after the excitement, doubts begin. For those of us who have read the Forum, we have constantly read that more technical and public information is needed for the development of some "WISHLIST" aircraft. As a result of that, many of us thought, Well! It seems ED is very responsible in carefully filtering the information, for us that assumed by us, it is a consolation that ED does the right thing although we cannot have the modern modules that we expect but we will have a more realistic full fidelity Simulator that we can have outside the military world and that would be above others like WT. The presentation of the F-35 creates this great doubt, especially when the methods of how the information will be obtained are reported. start the questions?

Will DCS develop modules based on public documents from unofficial sources?
If so, why not EA-18G Prowler? An S-400? an F/A-18E? because there are many open source articles from unofficial media and they are very good, surely enough to start a project. And another question perhaps the most worrying, ED has decided to make ¿Realistic modules or the most realistic that we can access as civilians?, because there is not much competition, so make a module with very little information or with gaps, which results in a module far from what it tries to represent even that can result in the "The most realistic thing there is in the civil environment."

Finally, when forum users talk about the standard, they are referring to this, and as the word says, the "standard" should not change according to the project, if it does not stop being a standard. I hope you don't take my post wrong, I'm not a heater, it's just that there are a lot of doubts, but I'm sure that ED knows all this and that they will professionally address these challenges. I wish you the best in this gigantic project!! I wouldn't expect it before 2030 so I see it far from the horizon and I'm not always worried, especially if it allows us to experience the capabilities of a 5th generation module and not a 3D model of a 5th generation aircraft without the capabilities that make it a 5th gen.

Regards!!! 

[Hammer1-1]

Its easy to make the F-35 quite honestly. Aside from modeling the actual aircraft in full, just turn labels on.

edit: did someone mention the F-117 being in progress? I have to ask because Ive seen a few comments mentioned in discord saying so, but I have a hard time believing that.

Edited January 17 by Hammer1-1

[NineLine]

Just now, Huilque151 said:

Hello ED, first of all the 2025 & Beyond video was incredible, the DCS cinematics are getting better every day, the F15C Announcement was what I expected even though I didn't see it coming! and the announcement of the F35 wow!! But a few seconds after the excitement, doubts begin. For those of us who have read the Forum, we have constantly read that more technical and public information is needed for the development of some "WISHLIST" aircraft. As a result of that, many of us thought, Well! It seems ED is very responsible in carefully filtering the information, for us that assumed by us, it is a consolation that ED does the right thing although we cannot have the modern modules that we expect but we will have a more realistic full fidelity Simulator that we can have outside the military world and that would be above others like WT. The presentation of the F-35 creates this great doubt, especially when the methods of how the information will be obtained are reported. start the questions?

Will DCS develop modules based on public documents from unofficial sources?
If so, why not EA-18G Prowler? An S-400? an F/A-18E? because there are many open source articles from unofficial media and they are very good, surely enough to start a project. And another question perhaps the most worrying, ED has decided to make ¿Realistic modules or the most realistic that we can access as civilians?, because there is not much competition, so make a module with very little information or with gaps, which results in a module far from what it tries to represent even that can result in the "The most realistic thing there is in the civil environment."

Finally, when forum users talk about the standard, they are referring to this, and as the word says, the "standard" should not change according to the project, if it does not stop being a standard. I hope you don't take my post wrong, I'm not a heater, it's just that there are a lot of doubts, but I'm sure that ED knows all this and that they will professionally address these challenges. I wish you the best in this gigantic project!! I wouldn't expect it before 2030 so I see it far from the horizon and I'm not always worried, especially if it allows us to experience the capabilities of a 5th generation module and not a 3D model of a 5th generation aircraft without the capabilities that make it a 5th gen.

Regards!!! 

A Super Hornet will most likely happen, but we need to finish the C first before moving to another. Sorry for the short answer to your long question, I am tired

[Oban]

1 minute ago, Springfield-902 said:

dont forget bout belt and eject seat too.

Oh yeah, the spinal cord compression really hurts, I used to be 6' 5" but due to the number of DCS world ejections I've had, I'm down to 5'8" my doctors says I have to find a much less stressfull hobby!!!

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

A Super Hornet will most likely happen, but we need to finish the C first before moving to another. Sorry for the short answer to your long question, I am tired

Too many flight hours brother, your piss pack will be too full

[Huilque151]

Just now, NineLine said:

A Super Hornet will most likely happen, but we need to finish the C first before moving to another. Sorry for the short answer to your long question, I am tired

Dont Worry dude! It must be a crazy day for you, you had a lot of action today! I'm encouraged and I would love to be someone who knows the F-35 well enough to be able to share data, if I know friends who have spent years reading about the plane.  Greetings! Could you see my post and PDF about POI in IRAQ MAP / DESERT STORM ??? I know this week is crazy for you, please tell me if you have been able to see it, much success with the new projects!

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, Huilque151 said:

Dont Worry dude! It must be a crazy day for you, you had a lot of action today! I'm encouraged and I would love to be someone who knows the F-35 well enough to be able to share data, if I know friends who have spent years reading about the plane.  Greetings! Could you see my post and PDF about POI in IRAQ MAP / DESERT STORM ??? I know this week is crazy for you, please tell me if you have been able to see it, much success with the new projects!

Send me a DM with the link, I think I did but my brain has crashed 3 times in the last hour

[evanf117]

7 hours ago, PFT_Orph3us said:

Maybe the famous Mig-31 but from the movie FIREFOX. What would You say?

...and second more thing, very soon in DCS

Su-47 and MiG 1.44 next

[Tom Kazansky]

I'm not 100% fine with this decision but I've been through this process of making my mind up already with the Eurofighter. (Not exactly the same but close.)

In the end I came to the conclusion that I want to fly the Eurofighter. I loved EF2000 from the 90's and how close to the real thing was that?

I want to fly the closest simulation of an F-35 to the real thing in any sim, and I'm sure ED will deliver it.

But I respect everybody's opinion that fears to lose something by getting those kind of modules.

So, I'm like 97% ok with it for myself, and that's enough fo me to buy it

Edited January 17 by Tom Kazansky

[kiss4luna]

I would buy any DCS: F-35 or F-22 modules without any heist.

[Springfield-902]

9 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I have a nice HOTAS and a piddle pack.

wtf bro thats cool are pee when fly too ?

[kris1983]

Thank you ED for this great announcement, will be waiting for F-35.