"Downgraded" Documentation Requirements for modules

Pillowcat · January 17

8 hours ago, cailean_556 said:

If you can do an F-35 based on airshows, pilot interviews and video footage then

"Plausible deniability"

用中文笑

upyr1 · January 17

15 hours ago, cailean_556 said:

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...

I've also seen 9-line state there is enough information about the Su-27 to do a module. Anyway, my questions are the following. First what information is essential for a module and what is actually available for the F-35 or anything else for that matter? There is a big difference between not getting data for something that would be modeled and not being able to get data on something that isn't that well modeled in the first place.

Mistermann · January 17

Lots of passion here in this thread. I meant that.

Here's my take.

This is EDs intellectual property to do with whatever they want. We are simply the customer who pays them and keeps the company afloat through purchases of said IP. One doesn't exist without the other. What I take from NLs comments here is they are doing a 5th gen fighter and they are all-in on it. Their IP, their decision - not up for discussion. If you don't like this decision it don't buy it.

We, as customers have no say in how they allocate internal resources. As an extremely experienced (old) software executive I understand all developers aren't interchangeable and over time can develop affinities towards the sections of the product they work on. If not careful, you end up with lots of specialists that aren't able to move between projects creating gridlock in development pipelines and an overall inability to be nimble across the entire set of projects.

Regardless of "why" ... we're being told development of any new Aircraft doesn't impact any core initiatives underway. At the end of the day, if doesn't really matter "why" this is the case. Its how ED runs their shop. They've done this for decades.

I personally think this boils down to one very simple factor - $$$$

ED could spend the time to make the most robust ATC or any of the hundreds of core features I want addressed, but they can't/won't monetize them. The only way, in their current business model, to generate revenue is through new modules. And herein lies the challenge. They've run out of marketable 4th gen content. If I'm in their shoes I make sure to maximize the revenue per dollar spent creating the module. In other words what are you going to sell more of and maximize revenue? They've just told us that answer - F35.

Now its on us to decide if we like this direction. Personally, I was shocked to see the most secret 5th gen fighter in the US inventory. Clearly ED's approach on this aircraft is "different" than those in the past. Revenue generation makes companies change course. Time will tell if this is good for the community as a whole.

Maybe today's newsletter will shed some light on their decision to enter 5th gen fighters and how they overcome the overwhelming amount of classified systems on such a modern airframe.

upyr1 · January 17

14 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.

When I saw the F-35A I figured that ED probably got a contract for an F-35 from a military customer and had some SME overtly telling them (redact this or that). From my understanding the B and C are basically identical to the A in terms of avionics and switchology (cockpit stuff) the only differences from those perspectives are the fan for S/VTOL and the switch to fold the wings. The flight model would differ slightly with the C being the most different (the A and B IRCC had the same prototype)

Devil 505 · January 17

13 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

ED probably got a contract for an F-35 from a military customer and had some SME overtly telling them (redact this or that). From my understanding the B and C are basically identical to the A in terms of avionics and switchology (cockpit stuff) the only differences from those perspectives are the fan for S/VTOL and the switch to fold the wings. The flight model would differ slightly with the C being the most different (the A and B IRCC had the same prototype)

All false. Lockheed Martin designs and develops the sim for the F-35, no one else. No military customer or SME is going to be providing anything to Eagle Dynamics about the F-35 unless they are doing so illegally. The public truly does not understand how classified this platform is and how many customers outside the United States fly the aircraft. SME's or military customers providing information on It would not only jeopardize the program but provide a means for our adversaries to gain sensitive/classified data on their largest aerial adversary.

The DCS community is delusional if they honestly believe Eagle Dynamics has a backdoor to gain inside knowledge on this aircraft. It is flat NOT happening. There is an F-35 maintainer who worked on the aircraft in a separate F-35 forum who comments on his inability to obtain certain data while being in the military and was on the same page as I am. ED is pushing out false information about the accuracy of the data they are obtaining on this aircraft. Another guy in that same forum clearly works on a military base with Viper pilots and said those pilots don't even have any knowledge of or the ability to speak with F-35 pilots about the platform. To assume a civilian game designer can obtain the material to make this fighter jet to the standards they have always promised to the community is unachievable and flat dishonesty.

This goes far beyond expanding DCS. This comes down to the honesty and commitment you made to your customers to provide the most accurate modules possible with valid and accurate information obtain through declassified documentation. There is NOTHING declassified on the Lightning. Again, EVERYTHING this company obtains will be speculative and their best guess. That is not what ED has always provided us, their best guess. They have provided us with an experience that mirrors the real thing based on declassified and accurate information to include SME's and pilots, none of which they can legally obtain for the F-35. You might as well convince me that Wikipedia is the prime source for this module.

Again, I love DCS and everything they do. It is my primary hobby, and I have purchased literally every single product that has been pushed out just to support them. This was a hard pill to choke down because I personally know 100% what I am being told is not achievable. When the F-35 comes to DCS, it will not be an authentic representation of the real bird. It will Eagle Dynamics best guess at what the aircraft is and should be. Again, that is not what this company prides themselves on and it sets a tone to the community and customers that reduced accuracy in future modules could become the norm.

upyr1 · January 17

3 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

All false. Lockheed Martin designs and develops the sim for the F-35, no one else. No military customer or SME is going to be providing anything to Eagle Dynamics about the F-35 unless they are doing so illegally. The public truly does not understand how classified this platform is and how many customers outside the United States fly the aircraft. SME's or military customers providing information on It would not only jeopardize the program but provide a means for our adversaries to gain sensitive/classified data on their largest aerial adversary.

I'm only stating what I figure probably happened when I saw the F-35A- not what happened. I understand that. I am not sure if I am going to get the F-35 module, I know if the lighting we were getting were the P-38 or English Electric I would be happy.

Devil 505 · January 17

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I know if the lighting we were getting were the P-38 or English Electric I would be happy.

Amen brother! And this is what I would love to see them do!!!! They are making the wrong Lightning for sure. We need the P-38.

I should probably get off my soap box before it gets me banned from the forums. They will clearly press on with this F-35. But the dishonesty in how they are obtaining stuff really bothers me. It is not good PR and it is an insult to their customers who have clearly more knowledge about the aircraft than ED does. They will do what they will do, I just hope this does not become the new method of "impressing" the customers. Otherwise, ED and DCS are going to sustain a strong hit to their solid reputation. Bad business move brother!

upyr1 · January 17

9 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

Amen brother! And this is what I would love to see them do!!!! They are making the wrong Lightning for sure. We need the P-38.

I should probably get off my soap box before it gets me banned from the forums. They will clearly press on with this F-35. But the dishonesty in how they are obtaining stuff really bothers me. It is not good PR and it is an insult to their customers who have clearly more knowledge about the aircraft than ED does. They will do what they will do, I just hope this does not become the new method of "impressing" the customers. Otherwise, ED and DCS are going to sustain a strong hit to their solid reputation. Bad business move brother!

The F-35A module really shows why I wish they had not killed MAC. It would have been perfect for MAC. MAC wasn't going to be full fidelity so it would have worked. Now that we have the F-35 announced we're now left with the simple question buy or pass?

Zebra1-1 · January 17

1 hour ago, Devil 505 said:

All false. Lockheed Martin designs and develops the sim for the F-35, no one else. No military customer or SME is going to be providing anything to Eagle Dynamics about the F-35 unless they are doing so illegally. The public truly does not understand how classified this platform is and how many customers outside the United States fly the aircraft. SME's or military customers providing information on It would not only jeopardize the program but provide a means for our adversaries to gain sensitive/classified data on their largest aerial adversary.

The DCS community is delusional if they honestly believe Eagle Dynamics has a backdoor to gain inside knowledge on this aircraft. It is flat NOT happening. There is an F-35 maintainer who worked on the aircraft in a separate F-35 forum who comments on his inability to obtain certain data while being in the military and was on the same page as I am. ED is pushing out false information about the accuracy of the data they are obtaining on this aircraft. Another guy in that same forum clearly works on a military base with Viper pilots and said those pilots don't even have any knowledge of or the ability to speak with F-35 pilots about the platform. To assume a civilian game designer can obtain the material to make this fighter jet to the standards they have always promised to the community is unachievable and flat dishonesty.

This goes far beyond expanding DCS. This comes down to the honesty and commitment you made to your customers to provide the most accurate modules possible with valid and accurate information obtain through declassified documentation. There is NOTHING declassified on the Lightning. Again, EVERYTHING this company obtains will be speculative and their best guess. That is not what ED has always provided us, their best guess. They have provided us with an experience that mirrors the real thing based on declassified and accurate information to include SME's and pilots, none of which they can legally obtain for the F-35. You might as well convince me that Wikipedia is the prime source for this module.

Again, I love DCS and everything they do. It is my primary hobby, and I have purchased literally every single product that has been pushed out just to support them. This was a hard pill to choke down because I personally know 100% what I am being told is not achievable. When the F-35 comes to DCS, it will not be an authentic representation of the real bird. It will Eagle Dynamics best guess at what the aircraft is and should be. Again, that is not what this company prides themselves on and it sets a tone to the community and customers that reduced accuracy in future modules could become the norm.

I too think it was likely requested by a customer. The classified stuff can remain classified. It is likely the flight characteristics that is being modeled.

Devil 505 · January 17

2 minutes ago, Zebra1-1 said:

I too think it was likely requested by a customer. The classified stuff can remain classified. It is likely the flight characteristics that is being modeled.

From a civilian perspective who just plays DCS, this makes logical sense.

I can tell you ED is not making F-35 simulators for the government. The first thing that would be placed in that contract between the DOD and ED is NONE of what they are working on goes to DCS world. Not to mention, Lockheed Martin is still utilizing prepar3D for their simulation platform. It is wrong for ED to remotely imply "I do not think they have yet" that they are working with someone in the background to simulate the F-35. It would be an absolute breach of their contract to take any of that data and apply it to DCS world.

maxTRX · January 17

3 hours ago, Mistermann said:

I personally think this boils down to one very simple factor - $$$$

What else... shake'em up, wake'em up. It will be fun to see what contraption ED cooks up

Zebra1-1 · January 17

7 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

From a civilian perspective who just plays DCS, this makes logical sense.

I can tell you ED is not making F-35 simulators for the government. The first thing that would be placed in that contract between the DOD and ED is NONE of what they are working on goes to DCS world. Not to mention, Lockheed Martin is still utilizing prepar3D for their simulation platform. It is wrong for ED to remotely imply "I do not think they have yet" that they are working with someone in the background to simulate the F-35. It would be an absolute breach of their contract to take any of that data and apply it to DCS world.

Yeh, none of the classified stuff into DCS World. There are already F-35 and F-22 mods in DCS. A $4000 computer for trainee pilots to practice landings, take offs, formation, BFM, flight routines etc. etc. is much better than tying up a $3 million sim to do the same stuff when those sims can be better utilized for the classified trainings.

Devil 505 · January 17

2 hours ago, Zebra1-1 said:

A $4000 computer for trainee pilots to practice landings, take offs, formation, BFM, flight routines etc. etc. is much better than tying up a $3 million sim to do the same stuff when those sims can be better utilized for the classified trainings.

Not arguing with you here and the USAF does implement some of ED's aircraft in a classroom environment with VR to avoid sim time for a multitude of reasons. This does not equate to the USAF providing ED unclassified material on the F-35 in return for ED making them an F-35 module. The reason why? THERE IS NO UNLASSIFIED MATERIAL out there!

Zebra1-1 · January 17

3 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

Not arguing with you here and the USAF does implement some of ED's aircraft in a classroom environment with VR to avoid sim time for a multitude of reasons. This does not equate to the USAF providing ED unclassified material on the F-35 in return for ED making them an F-35 module. The reason why? THERE IS NO UNLASSIFIED MATERIAL out there!

Mods in DCS, like the F-35, F-22 and others are kind of a pain to maintain and often cause issues. So there is a big benefit to having an officially supported module. I'm sure there is also benefit to sitting in a virtual F-35 cockpit as opposed to a F-16 cockpit for F-35 pilots. Even if everything else is close guestimations (which ED have pretty much said), ED obviously saw value in making an exception from their usual stance on creating modules. And the only logical explanation is that it was probably requested.

Zebra1-1 · January 17

The video also does NOT state that the F-35 is an FF module. So I would assume this is more along the lines of an FC3 module.

Devil 505 · January 17

35 minutes ago, Zebra1-1 said:

The video also does NOT state that the F-35 is an FF module. So I would assume this is more along the lines of an FC3 module.

I would have no issues with this if that was the way their fact page presented the module. But it is not. Go read what they are claiming to produce. Not a FC3 module.

Zebra1-1 · January 17

25 minutes ago, Devil 505 said:

I would have no issues with this if that was the way their fact page presented the module. But it is not. Go read what they are claiming to produce. Not a FC3 module.

I read the FAQ and agree it can be perceived as being FF, but It's not stated. The video also specifically states FF for the F-15C.

zildac · January 17

Can we do the blue fox radar now and get on with the Harrier variants?!

Zius · January 17

I agree with what others have said about the dangers of reducing documentation requirements.

So far, DCS was able to teach the player stuff about the real aircraft.

And while I am sure there might be some simplifications or some guesses on some particular compontents, overall, my expectation is that an aircraft in DCS should model the real aircraft, if not 100% then at least 99%.

It's clear that for the F-35 this is not achievable.

I was already suprised (and a bit skeptical) about the Eurofighter coming to DCS and about the JF-17 as well, but the F-35 is really the next step.

To those who are saying that everybody is free to buy the module or not: that's not the point. The point is about being able to trust that DCS will provide an as-accurate-as-possible simulation of the real aircraft. This breaking of trust may also affect other aircraft for which full documentation is actually available.

MAXsenna · January 18

3 hours ago, Zebra1-1 said:

I read the FAQ and agree it can be perceived as being FF, but It's not stated. The video also specifically states FF for the F-15C.

Well, the F-35A has its subforum under the FF and not the FC modules...

Zebra1-1 · January 18

Well, the F-35A has its subforum under the FF and not the FC modules...

Interesting. I did not see that.

upyr1 · January 18

13 hours ago, Mistermann said:

Lots of passion here in this thread. I meant that.

Here's my take.

This is EDs intellectual property to do with whatever they want. We are simply the customer who pays them and keeps the company afloat through purchases of said IP. One doesn't exist without the other. What I take from NLs comments here is they are doing a 5th gen fighter and they are all-in on it. Their IP, their decision - not up for discussion. If you don't like this decision it don't buy it.

We, as customers have no say in how they allocate internal resources. As an extremely experienced (old) software executive I understand all developers aren't interchangeable and over time can develop affinities towards the sections of the product they work on. If not careful, you end up with lots of specialists that aren't able to move between projects creating gridlock in development pipelines and an overall inability to be nimble across the entire set of projects.

Regardless of "why" ... we're being told development of any new Aircraft doesn't impact any core initiatives underway. At the end of the day, if doesn't really matter "why" this is the case. Its how ED runs their shop. They've done this for decades.

I personally think this boils down to one very simple factor - $$$$

ED could spend the time to make the most robust ATC or any of the hundreds of core features I want addressed, but they can't/won't monetize them. The only way, in their current business model, to generate revenue is through new modules. And herein lies the challenge. They've run out of marketable 4th gen content. If I'm in their shoes I make sure to maximize the revenue per dollar spent creating the module. In other words what are you going to sell more of and maximize revenue? They've just told us that answer - F35.

Now its on us to decide if we like this direction. Personally, I was shocked to see the most secret 5th gen fighter in the US inventory. Clearly ED's approach on this aircraft is "different" than those in the past. Revenue generation makes companies change course. Time will tell if this is good for the community as a whole.

Maybe today's newsletter will shed some light on their decision to enter 5th gen fighters and how they overcome the overwhelming amount of classified systems on such a modern airframe.

At the end of the day I think the real issue here is the What the factor. We've heard countless times when we ask about XYZ that there wasn't enough open sources for something then the F-35 gets announced. So I think people would like to know what is really going on. Does this mean ED's standards or getting lowered or what? If ED is lowering their standards I could see a mixed bag there. One side some developer might try doing the Su-35 or some other modern Red-For module Then there are DCS purists who go against the concept behind DCS. I've said it before I would be a lot happier if ED had not killed Modern Air Combat. Now we have the F-35 I might at least give it two weeks

Zebra1-1 · January 18

At the end of the day I think the real issue here is the What the factor. We've heard countless times when we ask about XYZ that there wasn't enough open sources for something then the F-35 gets announced. So I think people would like to know what is really going on. Does this mean ED's standards or getting lowered or what? If ED is lowering their standards I could see a mixed bag there. One side some developer might try doing the Su-35 or some other modern Red-For module Then there are DCS purists who go against the concept behind DCS. I've said it before I would be a lot happier if ED had not killed Modern Air Combat. Now we have the F-35 I might at least give it two weeks

This 100%.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

NineLine · January 18

15 hours ago, Mistermann said:

I personally think this boils down to one very simple factor - $$$$

What a concept, a business trying to remain profitable

But seriously, DCS needs to grow, it needs to expand. The newer aircraft always do better no matter how popular Cold War, WWII, etc may seem. If we grow stagnate we will not continue to thrive. We must keep pushing the hobby further than it has been, this is what makes DCS a survivor in a wasteland of simulator games from the 90s on. Continuing to strive to do more, be more and offer more. Not everyone likes change or embraces it, but growth in DCS will benefit everyone, allowing us to do more and be more.

Kageseigi · January 18

20 minutes ago, NineLine said:

What a concept, a business trying to remain profitable

But seriously, DCS needs to grow, it needs to expand. The newer aircraft always do better no matter how popular Cold War, WWII, etc may seem. If we grow stagnate we will not continue to thrive. We must keep pushing the hobby further than it has been, this is what makes DCS a survivor in a wasteland of simulator games from the 90s on. Continuing to strive to do more, be more and offer more. Not everyone likes change or embraces it, but growth in DCS will benefit everyone, allowing us to do more and be more.

I sense a new Ubisoft is arising

Sign In

"Downgraded" Documentation Requirements for modules

Recommended Posts

Pillowcat

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cailean_556

Sandman1330

stburr91

upyr1

Mistermann

upyr1

Devil 505

upyr1

Devil 505

upyr1

Zebra1-1

Devil 505

maxTRX

Zebra1-1

Devil 505

Zebra1-1

Zebra1-1

Devil 505

Zebra1-1

zildac

Zius

MAXsenna

Zebra1-1

upyr1

Zebra1-1

NineLine

Kageseigi

Recently Browsing 0 members