"Downgraded" Documentation Requirements for modules

[MAXsenna]

31 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

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.

I wrote elsewhere that there are rumours floating around the F-117 is also coming from a 3rd party. I don't think ED was ever interested in making the F-117. Hence the excuses. Could also be the sim wasn't up for "stealth". I agree with those that are under the impression ED has gotten a contract for the F-35A. Will make very much sense. And we will have a redacted version. We then might get the B and the C if they can find customers for them.

[Devil 505]

33 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

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.

You started with my primary point and proved it "There are sources that claim".  That is all it will be.  Hypothesized and educated guessing at how things are done.  No NATOPS manuals, NO US Military pilot providing insight because it is prohibited with this aircraft.  This is what other sims are for.  Not DCS.  

[Kev2go]

53 minutes ago, 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.

ive read that the block 2b software is what the USMC F35B became IOC with. F35A reached IOC at a later date with a newer software suite, IF i recall correctly block 3i should be the earliest for an initial USAF service F35A. 

Edited January 16 by Kev2go

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Yes and we (Belgium) recently got our first F-35A, which is Block 4.

So Block 2B will be a far cry from operational birds, but still… Blegh…

[KarateCriminal]

3 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

ive read that the block 2b software is what the USMC F35B became IOC with. F35A reached IOC at a later date with a newer software suite, IF i recall correctly block 3i should be the earliest for an initial USAF service F35A. 

From public sources, 3i software didn't really add many new features compared to 2b. It was mainly a hardware upgrade, with the big one being a new processor

[Dragon1-1]

17 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I wrote elsewhere that there are rumours floating around the F-117 is also coming from a 3rd party.

Well, there's that very prominent shot of one in the 2025 and beyond video...  The Stinkbug is a bit of a one trick pony, but it's all right for 3rd party.

I have relatively little interest in the flying iPad, but if a good enough campaign comes out for it, I'll probably buy it. Of course, I have to finish the ones I already have first. I'm more interested in the Eaglejet.

[Kev2go]

4 minutes ago, KarateCriminal said:

From public sources, 3i software didn't really add many new features compared to 2b. It was mainly a hardware upgrade, with the big one being a new processor

yeah block 3i being an initial version followed by block 3F as the full "100%"  mission capability or something. I just think it would make more sense for an circa 2015 initial IOC F35B to have this software, not a USAF F35A. 

 

So like not only does ED admits in Q&A they need to crutch on lockmart F35 simulators as thier main means of source material, it still means they have to use the wrong software suite for a different service variant of the F35.

Edited January 16 by Kev2go

[KarateCriminal]

Just now, Kev2go said:

yeah block 3i being an initial version followed by block 3F as the full "100%"  mission capability or something. 

Yep. Which is what the USN declared IOC with. The full progression is: 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3i, 3F, 4. With subversions among these.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Well, they have deleted on the F-35A FAQ the mention to the Block 2B. Dont know intended or mistake.

But is impossible to model all the weapons suite mentioned on the FAQ for a Block 2B. At very minimum you need a F-35A Block 3F to use all those weapons. Block2B cant use Aim-9X, cant use more than 2 Aim-120C, cant use different types of bombs at the same time, cant use GBU-31, and most of the GBU family, cant make SEAD missions because software is not developed, most of the threats tables are missing, not to mentions literally thousands of software bugs on 2B version.

If even for the barebone F-35A it is with Block 2B i really doubt about a proper system-radar-weapons-flight model, imagine the more advance 3F software.

I really want to trust on ED but a full fidelity F-35A Block 3F is a guess work at best.

Edited January 17 by Esac_mirmidon

[NineLine]

We will discuss the variant closer to release and when we have a more solid feel. IIB was removed from the FAQ to allow some more leeway on that. We have researched for over 2 years on this, and continue to do so. We will update later. Thanks. 

[Devil 505]

Man ED, you guys really got me going on this one! You claim to have this out "hopefully" in 2026.  The F-6 Hellcat was announced last 2024 and Beyond video and we still have not seen an old WW2 Navy bird, but somehow you will find the resources and material to produce the world leading 5th Gen fighter sometime next year without any official documentation.  All these block upgrades everyone is discussing is not like your traditional block upgrade.  It's not like the F-16 where since it is an older block, we can produce it.  I guarantee you just because it's an older block does not mean it makes it that less classified or easier to obtain data on.  

Guys, I hate to be the bad guy, I really do.  I am beyond an avid supporter of every module you have ever made, and honestly got in trouble on the forums before defending you guys a little to firm.  The claims you have made today might as well have included a date selected at my request to sleep with Taylor Swift upon my F-35A preorder.  To even model the helmet for the Pilot accurately for the 3D pilot will be a long shot.  I might as well try to convince everyone on this forum the war in Gaza just ended when this video came out.      

Edited January 16 by Devil 505

[Esac_mirmidon]

2B is just a barebone F-35 with very limited capabilities, almost still a testbed for software improvements.

The goal should be at least the Block 3F. If ED grants they can make that software version then its ok to mention all the weapons, but until more info is provided im very skeptical about developing a F-35A Block 3F in full fidelity, even with the obvious limits DCS should observe. The Weapons list on the FAQ should be noted with a big red disclaimer "Depending on the software version we can model, subject to change "

Edited January 17 by Esac_mirmidon

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

4 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

Man ED, you guys really got me going on this one! You claim to have this out "hopefully" in 2026.  The F-6 Hellcat was announced last 2024 and Beyond video and we still have not seen an old WW2 Navy bird, but somehow you will find the resources and material to produce the world leading 5th Gen fighter sometime next year without any official documentation.  All these block upgrades everyone is discussing is not like your traditional block upgrade.  It's not like the F-16 where since it is an older block, we can produce it.  I guarantee you just because it's an older block does not mean it makes it that less classified or easier to obtain data on.  

Guys, I hate to be the bad guy, I really do.  I am beyond an avid supporter of every module you have ever made, and honestly got in trouble on the forums before defending you guys a little to firm.  The claims you have made today might as well have included a date selected at my request to sleep with Taylor Swift upon my F-35A preorder.  To even model the helmet for the Pilot accurately for the 3D pilot will be a long shot.  I might as well try to convince everyone on this forum the war in Gaza just ended when this video came out.      

And some dislike this being mentioned, but it's true.

I'm very skeptical. VERY skeptical. If they can do it? Rad. But, by 2026? Doubt.

[okopanja]

Su-30: +

[Jetguy06]

1 hour ago, 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.

This is my best guess as to what's happening, outside the FAQ. They may have an NDA that prohibits them from talking about it, or they're just keeping the contract to themselves. There's really no telling.

 

I'm excited for it. I love all my modules, from Cold War to the most modern, but for very different reasons. It's apples and oranges, akin to airplanes vs helicopters.

 

Cold War aircraft are harder to fly, easier to operate, and require alot of practice and stick-and-rudder skills to put rounds on target, especially for a fan of mud moving like myself. I get a real sense of accomplishment when I hit my target in, say, a Phantom, and my thought process is usually, "Wow... look at what I was able to do!!"

Modern aircraft are easier to fly and harder to operate. But the capabilities they possess are incredible. I come away from flights in them with a smaller sense of, "Look what I was able to do," and a larger sense of, "Wow... look what this aircraft allows me to do!!"

 

I also don't find flying modern aircraft in virtual combat any easier, by any huge stretch, if the scenario is set correctly. If you put the Viper (or the F-35 for that matter) in a scenario where your only threats are MANPADS, ZU-23s, ZU-57s, KS-19s, and SA-2s, where you would feel at home in something like a Phantom, sure it'll feel incredibly easy to fly in like an airliner, drop a few JDAMs, and go home.

 

But match the threat to the platform. Put the Viper or F-35 against some S-300s, Sa-15s Sa-19s, etc., and the challenge returns. It's all about the context of the era and capabilities of your aircraft vs the era and capabilities of your adversary in your scenario. If you're finding it too easy, ramp up the threat level.

[AMEDooley]

4 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

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

 

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.

That’s pretty accurate about the start up procedure. It’s very few steps. Mostly it’s making sure the screens come up when they’re supposed to and cycling the parking brake. Then you push the start button lol!

 

But also accurate about being opposed to the module. Give me ATC, DTC, SRS style coms, VAICOM style ability, correct line width at Nellis, Dynamic weather, or any of the other basic mechanics in the game before this. Plus the whole “we can’t do that because no docs/classified” thing they always use to not do something.

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, AMEDooley said:

That’s pretty accurate about the start up procedure. It’s very few steps. Mostly it’s making sure the screens come up when they’re supposed to and cycling the parking brake. Then you push the start button lol!

 

But also accurate about being opposed to the module. Give me ATC, DTC, SRS style coms, VAICOM style ability, correct line width at Nellis, Dynamic weather, or any of the other basic mechanics in the game before this. Plus the whole “we can’t do that because no docs/classified” thing they always use to not do something.

All those things you list, a team working on the F-35 would not do. So while I appreciate the concern over other items in DCS, an aircraft team would not and could not be tasked to do them. 

[evanf117]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I wrote elsewhere that there are rumours floating around the F-117 is also coming from a 3rd party. I don't think ED was ever interested in making the F-117. Hence the excuses. Could also be the sim wasn't up for "stealth". I agree with those that are under the impression ED has gotten a contract for the F-35A. Will make very much sense. And we will have a redacted version. We then might get the B and the C if they can find customers for them.

yes my thoughts are something along the line of that, i feel like this is a military contract and ED is just blatantly lying to us about it, i wouldn't care if they just went "yea we are doing an F-35, dont question it" but if it is a contract then making up lies about it all being OSINT is a really foolish mistake

[Devil 505]

@NineLine @Wags @BIGNEWY Is Nick still the owner of ED or is this a transition to new leadership? The 2025 and Beyond Video has an absence of Nicks voice and his sincere gratitude for his customers and community and making your dreams come true.  This year we had no voice representing ED and a promise of a 5th Gen fighter by 2026 that is still classified with current maintainers, pilots, and their crew unable to discuss how the aircraft operates, flies, or what its true capabilities are.  I know for a fact there is NOTHING out there online legally regarding the HMDS the pilots use. 

This move with the F-35 is very uncharacteristic of Eagle Dynamics as a company. It goes against everything you have ever stated to your community about only doing modules you feel you can accurately and authentically reproduce.  How can you genuinely expect the community and customers to believe you can make an accurate 5th gen fighter like the F-35 when you have turned down other modules in the past for a lack of documentation and the platforms classified nature.  Or stated the company would not allow the rights to produce said aircraft.  

The documentation online regarding the F-35 is speculation and guessing at best.  The entire project is going to be based on hypotheticals and assumptions.  Lockheed Martin, BAE, Gentex, Rockwell Collins and the rest of the crew who design and develop the platform from the ground up do not disseminate their data or documentation online for people to see, even if it is outdated.  This would be a federal breach of the contracts they have signed with Lockheed Martin and their Customers.  There is no "older block" variant you will have access to.  You will not have access to a real F-35 which leads all your 3D work to be done by hand or by images you find online or in books.  Again, uncharacteristic of an ED move to have as much valid data as possible on the aircraft.

I have been and always will be an avid supporter of Eagle Dynamics and your products, that will not change.  However, I must say I am extremely disappointed the company decided to go down this path.  It feels like a cash grab opportunity to me.  ED is going into this module absolutely knowing without any uncertainty you will not be able to provide what you proclaim you have been researching for the past 2 years.  Why not choose the Blackhawk, or the Cobra which has been promised since the Bell Simtek days?  Why not a WW2 bomber?  You just shot yourself in the foot as company in my humble opinion.  The community will not believe you going forward if you ever say "we can't do that" again.  My first question would be why can you not make a B-17, a B-24, or a B-52?  Why can't you make the latest block F-16?  You are doing the most classified aircraft in the US inventory right now with open-source material. 

This goes far beyond the F-35 module itself.  It's about the trust we have in you as a company.  There is no other competitor out there.  You guys ARE the kings of Combat Simulators.  I implore you not to go down this route.  Stick to your roots and do aircraft you have access to.  That is what your community and customers want.  I want those aircraft that are dying in the museums, the ones people will forget about years from now if we do not have talented developers like yourself keeping them alive.  Damn the 5th gen stuff.  

This was a critical review of you taking this path with the F-35 and I mean it in the humblest way possible.  I just don't want to see my primary hobby and favorite sim turn into a situation where we lose the dedication and integrity of recreating these legendary aircraft to their fullest detail and authenticity.

One more thing, Wags is not the voice of the ATC on MSFS2024 is he?  If he is not, then he has a twin brother that sounds identical to him, or Microsoft used AI to copy his voice.  

[NineLine]

4 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

@NineLine @Wags @BIGNEWY Is Nick still the owner of ED or is this a transition to new leadership? The 2025 and Beyond Video has an absence of Nicks voice and his sincere gratitude for his customers and community and making your dreams come true.  This year we had no voice representing ED and a promise of a 5th Gen fighter by 2026 that is still classified with current maintainers, pilots, and their crew unable to discuss how the aircraft operates, flies, or what its true capabilities are.  I know for a fact there is NOTHING out there online legally regarding the HMDS the pilots use. 

This move with the F-35 is very uncharacteristic of Eagle Dynamics as a company. It goes against everything you have ever stated to your community about only doing modules you feel you can accurately and authentically reproduce.  How can you genuinely expect the community and customers to believe you can make an accurate 5th gen fighter like the F-35 when you have turned down other modules in the past for a lack of documentation and the platforms classified nature.  Or stated the company would not allow the rights to produce said aircraft.  

The documentation online regarding the F-35 is speculation and guessing at best.  The entire project is going to be based on hypotheticals and assumptions.  Lockheed Martin, BAE, Gentex, Rockwell Collins and the rest of the crew who design and develop the platform from the ground up do not disseminate their data or documentation online for people to see, even if it is outdated.  This would be a federal breach of the contracts they have signed with Lockheed Martin and their Customers.  There is no "older block" variant you will have access to.  You will not have access to a real F-35 which leads all your 3D work to be done by hand or by images you find online or in books.  Again, uncharacteristic of an ED move to have as much valid data as possible on the aircraft.

I have been and always will be an avid supporter of Eagle Dynamics and your products, that will not change.  However, I must say I am extremely disappointed the company decided to go down this path.  It feels like a cash grab opportunity to me.  ED is going into this module absolutely knowing without any uncertainty you will not be able to provide what you proclaim you have been researching for the past 2 years.  Why not choose the Blackhawk, or the Cobra which has been promised since the Bell Simtek days?  Why not a WW2 bomber?  You just shot yourself in the foot as company in my humble opinion.  The community will not believe you going forward if you ever say "we can't do that" again.  My first question would be why can you not make a B-17, a B-24, or a B-52?  Why can't you make the latest block F-16?  You are doing the most classified aircraft in the US inventory right now with open-source material. 

This goes far beyond the F-35 module itself.  It's about the trust we have in you as a company.  There is no other competitor out there.  You guys ARE the kings of Combat Simulators.  I implore you not to go down this route.  Stick to your roots and do aircraft you have access to.  That is what your community and customers want.  I want those aircraft that are dying in the museums, the ones people will forget about years from now if we do not have talented developers like yourself keeping them alive.  Damn the 5th gen stuff.  

This was a critical review of you taking this path with the F-35 and I mean it in the humblest way possible.  I just don't want to see my primary hobby and favorite sim turn into a situation where we lose the dedication and integrity of recreating these legendary aircraft to their fullest detail and authenticity.

One more thing, Wags is not the voice of the ATC on MSFS2024 is he?  If he is not, then he has a twin brother that sounds identical to him, or Microsoft used AI to copy his voice.  

No, Nick has planned on doing a voice over, but him and GA decided it didn't fit the pacing and music. So it was dropped, do not read anything into it.

For the rest, not sure what to say, we disagree that we have no competitors, we feel this will expand DCS and help it grow and add new and exciting things. Its just progress and doesn't change many of the other things coming or being worked on. 

6 minutes ago, evanf117 said:

yes my thoughts are something along the line of that, i feel like this is a military contract and ED is just blatantly lying to us about it, i wouldn't care if they just went "yea we are doing an F-35, dont question it" but if it is a contract then making up lies about it all being OSINT is a really foolish mistake

If it was a military contract, which as far as I know it is not, we would not say anything most likely anyway. Our military stuff is separate from DCS. We do not discuss that here. 

[evanf117]

16 minutes ago, NineLine said:

No, Nick has planned on doing a voice over, but him and GA decided it didn't fit the pacing and music. So it was dropped, do not read anything into it.

For the rest, not sure what to say, we disagree that we have no competitors, we feel this will expand DCS and help it grow and add new and exciting things. Its just progress and doesn't change many of the other things coming or being worked on. 

If it was a military contract, which as far as I know it is not, we would not say anything most likely anyway. Our military stuff is separate from DCS. We do not discuss that here. 

it seems very much out of character, and unlike ED to go in this direction when we literally just had controversy over "we want Mav's, a Probe and 4 winders on the F-5" "no you cant have 4 winders, they weren't on the exact frame we are modelling". especially seems there is a reasonable amount of people who would buy the upgrade if it got mav's and more winders, this includes my self, "we are making an F-35 because money" seems like a poor excuse when ED chooses not to make money with other airframes due to "realism",

im very glad the F-16 got 4 harms, i commend ED for that, so why cant the F-5 get 4 winders, a Probe and Mav's would be good too please

i have a feeling in some way this will hurt ED in the long run, and i have a feeling this is ED missing the forest for the trees, there are so many better places that this development time could be spent on, and i dont mean "oh work on something unrelated that you dont know how to" i mean, there are so many minor and less minor things either missing or broken on existing aircraft that could be fixed by devs who will work on the F-35, and there are so many airframes which will bring in so much money that make more sense than the F-35 even if they have to be based on just as little information, like idk, a MiG-29K or something, but no, we cant even get the MiG-29 9-13, we are stuck with the worst possible variant, an export 9-12.

also the part about "balance" i think is just silly, modern day is turning into bluefor vs bluefor, even though modern redfor aircraft are on par or better in some cases, but we wont get those will we, not even early 2000's redfor other than the Ka-50 and JF-17

and if ED wants to continue down a fictional pathway, why not a MiG 1.44 or a Su-47

Edited January 17 by evanf117
finishing a half complete sentence

[Devil 505]

2 minutes ago, NineLine said:

we feel this will expand DCS and help it grow and add new and exciting things.

@NineLine Brother I get you want to expand DCS, but at what cost? The sacrifice of being able to put an authentic and realistic fighter jet out there.  It's going to be speculative data at best.  Eagle Dynamics absolutely prides themselves on authenticity of their modules and realism.  You lose that edge with your customers AND your competition when take on an aircraft you cannot possibly provide a realistic experience with. 

If it's the goal of DCS to expand, we need more asset packs to match the number of maps we have out there.  Not just one updated Russian troop, US Troop, or singular Insurgent.  We have really no insurgent packs for Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria, or Sinai. I saw 3 different AI ground troops today in the 2025 video but nothing to indicate an actual asset pack.  We have recreated the most volatile regions in the middle east in DCS and have virtually no authentic units for those time periods to put on the map.  To me, those are the things needed to expand DCS.  

Where are the AI units for WW2?  Virtually no AI bombers for US or German forces.  We have a beautiful Normandy map and no HE-111's, Stukas, Hurricanes ect... We cant even do the battle of Brittain.  But we have another map coming for Germany. 

DCS is a phenomenal platform, but if the goal is to expand DCS, we need to expand assets so we can take full advantage of what we already have to fly in game now.  The F-35 is not going to expand DCS the way you think in my humble opinion.  Even if it does come out, who are its adversaries going to be? What's its purpose in the game to expand the capabilities of DCS?

I am being a harsh critic and please take the aforementioned as constructive criticism.  I just feel like your community has been screaming for a long time now to flesh out what we have so it feels more complete and now here we are talking about a 5th gen fighter.

[NineLine]

19 minutes ago, evanf117 said:

we literally just had controversy over "we want Mav's, a Probe and 4 winders on the F-5" "no you cant have 4 winders, they weren't on the exact frame we are modelling"

Once again, that has nothing to do with being able to model the F-35. 

[evanf117]

48 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Once again, that has nothing to do with being able to model the F-35. 

yes it does, because the stated reason we cant have nice things is realism, and yet the F-35 is HUGE departure from realism, doesn't matter how you cut the cake, its still chocolate and cheese

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, evanf117 said:

yes it does, because the stated reason we cant have nice things is realism, and yet the F-35 is HUGE departure from realism, doesn't matter how you cut the cake, its still chocolate and cheese

You are assuming we cannot build it with some level of realism, that is not correct. We could also do what you mentioned for the F-5, but would be feature creep and require a different variant (we are looking at the radios and INS). The two things are not the same no matter how you word it, sorry.