Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'll get the important part out of the way first:

Developing a 5th Gen aircraft using the less "traditionally cited" forms of documentation (i.e. public, open-source media) to develop a full-fidelity module can only be seen as a relaxation or "downgrade" of the documentation required (at least by ED) to develop a full-fidelity module for DCS.

Does this mean that, seeing as ED is doing it with the F-35, other third-parties or even ED itself can now make modules that it has otherwise said that documentation does not exist/not complete enough to develop a module?

For example, part of the reason a Su-30 module (yes, I'm aware there is a pretty-well-put-together mod available) or Su-27 module does not exist has previous been explained away as not having enough documentation to simulate the aircraft. Would ED allow other aircraft to be developed into modules for DCS, using the same form of sources cited as being used in the development of the F-35 module? There are many, MANY examples of Su-30s at airshows and technical demonstrations etc...

And, given this, does this also yield some hope that other aircraft already in DCS can receive upgrades to their systems and/or weapons? A great first-use test-case would be the "new" F-5E module upgrade - you can't tell me there's "more documentation" available on the F-35 and its complete systems and weapons, than there is for putting an extra pair of AAMs, AGM-65s and an IFR probe on the F-5E...

Edited by cailean_556
  • Like 27
  • Thanks 2
Posted

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

  • Like 23
  • Thanks 1

Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2

Posted
2 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Doing a 5th Gen as the "first module to use this form of documentation" is a bit of an odd choice but I suppose it demonstrates what can be done.

What I am saying though is: If you can do an F-35 based on airshows, pilot interviews and video footage then there's no reason why an F/A-18E/F, a Mitsubishi A-6M Zero or an F-16A ADV can't be done.

Pandora's box might be opened, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. If we had the aircraft roster of War Thunder but in DCS (i.e. not 'competitive PvP only' on small/fictitious maps), I'd be okay with that. I think everyone would have at least one of their favourite aircraft in DCS then. There of course need to be ground rules around what can/can't be developed (no X-Wings, or TIE Fighters for example) but more diversity in aircraft and variants of aircraft isn't bad. Developing an F-35, but not allowing other aircraft to be simulated using the same or similar sources, is.

  • Like 4
Posted

I've always maintained that I'd happily have a "best guess" over nothing at all. 

I'm never going to fly an F-35, so I won't know the difference! 

  • Like 9
Posted

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it is a monumental, tectonic shift in ED's business model. DCS will never be the same - we are now going to be looking at a significant mix of ultra high fidelity models mixed with pseudo, knida sorta high fidelity. This is groundbreaking....

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2

Posted
11 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

If they're going to "downgrade" accuracy, upgrade the flipping Hind to the 35 and give us some sodding parity, this creates a greater imbalance when we need more redfor modules.  I will not be supporting this module.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

“War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.” ― Carl von Clausewitz, On War

Posted

As others have pointed out, to make a ff module with nothing more than video, and "interviews" completely changes the meaning of full fidelity, and study level simulation.  

  • Like 18
  • Thanks 1
Posted

If they downgrade fidelity they need to downgrade their prices too.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1

“War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.” ― Carl von Clausewitz, On War

Posted

It seems ridiculous that when they announced the A version of the MiG29, and the public requested an SMT version ED said that if it did not have "reliable data" they were not going to simulate an airplane...; now simply with a few marketing videos and other videos of a flying plane is enough....; because the public is going to pay...; the next will be Star Wars spacecraft

  • Like 13
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

agreed. i would of thought this would make sense as an AI asset, or maybe even a Flaming cliffs level aircraft, But a full fidelity? I  dont think ED has access to Dash 1 and Dash 34 documentation for a block 2b.

Edited by Kev2go
  • Like 4

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

agreed. i would of thought this would make sense as an AI asset, or maybe even a Flaming cliffs level aircraft, But a full fidelity? I  dont think ED has access to Dash 1 and Dash 34 documentation for a block 2b.

They may, there's a possibility there is a real military contract for this like the A-10, and we'll get the redacted version. If they have a manual or two, then there's no reason this would be any less fidelity than the Hornet in it's current state.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, ESA_maligno said:

It seems ridiculous that when they announced the A version of the MiG29, and the public requested an SMT version ED said that if it did not have "reliable data" they were not going to simulate an airplane...; now simply with a few marketing videos and other videos of a flying plane is enough....; because the public is going to pay...; the next will be Star Wars spacecraft

The Su-30 mod uses similar documentation to this proposed F-35

we have some SMT docs

I have some Rafale stuff

the J-10B/C uses a very similar cockpit hud and MFD to the JF-17

 

why not just have a separate tier between FF and FC that can be toggled?

Just now, Hulkbust44 said:

They may, there's a possibility there is a real military contract for this like the A-10, and we'll get the redacted version. If they have a manual or two, then there's no reason this would be any less fidelity than the Hornet in it's current state.

That was my theory

  • Like 4
Posted

I cannot agree more with the statement above.  We have been told for years the F-117 could not be made because the lack of documentation and the classified nature or its development and systems.  However, we are led to believe that ED will pull off a very close to realistic F-35A? 

The F-117 used legacy F-18 avionics and damn near had the same start up procedure as the Hornet, same weapons implementation, same MFD's ect... The classified nature lied in the material used to build the aircrafts stealth capabilities.  It could easily be argued that this could have been made a lot easier than the F-35A because of the amount of documentation out there for years now.  It was introduced in 83 and retired in 08.  It would also be a better fit to our current maps.

The Helmet Mounted Display is the soul of the F-35 (The helmet).  I highly doubt ED is going to be able to pull off the ability to accurately represent this in an authentic and realistic way.  By all means, please prove me wrong.  But that assumption here is a game designer can gather enough information open source to build a classified 5th Gen fighter very close to the real thing, but somehow the US military can keep that information from our adversaries.  

Do not get me wrong ED, everyone wants an F-35, but I feel like you guys just overstated your capabilities to provide what we have always loved and wanted from you, and that is the most authentic and realistic representation of military aircraft that can be found in a simulation.  I know for a FACT, there is NO way, 0 chance in hell, you will obtain the information required for the F-35 to provide this level of detail to the community and I feel it is a step backwards when there are so many other iconic aircraft out there to recreate.  I do not see Wags doing a cold start on the F-35A and honestly be able to say, this is how it is done.  He will now have to say to the community, this is how we think it's done, and that defeats the purpose of your goal with this sim. 

I would like to say I hope you prove me wrong, but I know 100% you will not be able to accurately recreate this aircraft because it is literally classified.  It will take a lot of interpretation on ED's behalf as to how thing work and operate on the aircraft and that is why we never begged for this from the start. 

  • Like 16
Posted
22 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it is a monumental, tectonic shift in ED's business model. DCS will never be the same - we are now going to be looking at a significant mix of ultra high fidelity models mixed with pseudo, knida sorta high fidelity. This is groundbreaking....

That already happens today. two of the most popular A2A modules are flaming cliffs ones mixed with full fidelity hornets, vipers and tomcats.

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted
34 minutes ago, Sandman1330 said:

I feel Pandora's box has been opened...

Certainly the Mk 1 Rod for their own back has been unveiled.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I suspect the su27/30 modules not being developed is less an issue of documentation per se but rather more an issue of them having offices in Russia/Bielorussia whose governments won't let them develop such modules. 

They probably could develop the su27 given the f35 is in the works, but in the case of the 27, it probably won't end well for ed if they try...

Edited by mikey69420
  • Like 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Eviscerador said:

That already happens today. two of the most popular A2A modules are flaming cliffs ones mixed with full fidelity hornets, vipers and tomcats.

But those modules are marketed as such. FC4 modules are both branded as not being full fidelity, and are much cheaper.

Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2

Posted
3 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

everyone wants an F-35

I doubt that: there’s a core audience that’s been around a while who are very vocally opposed to this module.

 

4 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

Wags doing a cold start on the F-35A

There are sources that claim the startup is so automated it’s pretty much just pushing the start-button and the aircraft takes care of the rest. Just look at the cockpit: there’s not much there in terms of buttons and switches.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Asus ProArt RTX 4080 Super | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | VR: Varjo Aero
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2 grip on VPForce Rhino with Z-curve extension | Virpil CM3 throttle | Virpil CP2 + 3 | FSSB R3L | VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip | Everything mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS graphics settings

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, mikey69420 said:

I suspect the su27/30 modules not being developed is less an issue of documentation per se but rather more an issue of them having offices in Russia/Bielorussia whose governments won't let them develop such modules. 

They probably could develop the su27 the same way as what they're doing with the f35, but in the case of the 27, it probably won't end well for ed if they try...

That's a fair assumption. However, there is a modding group that already have a fairly convincing approximation of a Su-30 that could possibly be made a third-party - assuming the rules for third-party modules are changed to allow for this kind of development.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 minute ago, cailean_556 said:

That's a fair assumption. However, there is a modding group that already have a fairly convincing approximation of a Su-30 that could possibly be made a third-party - assuming the rules for third-party modules are changed to allow for this kind of development.

Yea, when I say why doesn’t add an SU-30 I mean add the one that’s literally in game right now but with SDK support.

Posted (edited)
  1. F-35 with publicly available information only, will be difficult to model with such limited data.
  2. Su-30 has even way LESS publicly available information about its avionics, sensors, weapon systems and workflows then the F-35 and it would be just WT/MOD level abomination.
Edited by bies
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
On 1/16/2025 at 11:04 PM, cailean_556 said:

That's a fair assumption. However, there is a modding group that already have a fairly convincing approximation of a Su-30 that could possibly be made a third-party - assuming the rules for third-party modules are changed to allow for this kind of development.

Perhaps if a third party, not from Russia, tries doing a export su30, then it could maybe just about fly under the authorities radar for ED not to get into trouble.

After all the su30 is widely exported and seems to have variants custom built for exports (MKI, MKA, MKM etc...) that have either Israeli or Indian avionics whereas export su27's seem closer to domestic variants especially in the avionics and such. My guess would be that these export su30's are perhaps less secretive to Russia.

Who knows, maybe I'm just speaking out my rear

Edited by mikey69420
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...