"Downgraded" Documentation Requirements for modules

[NineLine]

I thought my little speech was nice and that is your take away, hurts man... really hurts. 

9 minutes ago, Kageseigi said:

I sense a new Ubisoft is arising

 

[cailean_556]

@NineLine I've only just noticed you've moved this thread to 'Chit-Chat' (fair enough, it wasn't really F-35 specific anyway).

I just wanted to clarify more clearly a couple points I guess I was trying to ask but doing a terrible job in doing so. I may have come across as combative or hostile, that's not the intent - I just genuinely want to understand.

You stated elsewhere in another thread that if a third-party can demonstrate they can do the research and do the work (as the ED team have with the F-35 development) that ED would consider their offering.

Does that mean that, for example, the Codename FLANKER team (I'm not affiliated with them at all, I just focus on the Su-30 because it's a personal favourite of mine and it ticks a lot of boxes that 'REDFOR' need to counter the increasingly capable BLUFOR module offerings) could approach you, with their mod, and essentially go "Hey, here's our Su-30 mod. We want to get this up to DCS module standard and we're using the same form of sources to inform development as you are for the F-35" and presto, Su-30 FF module in DCS? I know it's more complicated than that, but long and short of it?

ED may not have lowered the standard of information it desires, but it has seemingly expanded what it considers reliable sources of information and will apparently defer to educated guesses where information isn't reliable based on gained understanding. If that same mentality is not now also afforded to other aircraft, isn't that a tad hypocritical?

Previously, lack of documentation on implementation has been cited as a major reason (among others, such as certain national laws that prohibit ED from developing modern Russian aircraft) for a module not being a possibility. Yet that exact same lack of documentation/information is either already occurring, or will occur, regarding PVI workflow, capabilities and weapons/systems integration (not to mention stealth, EW and other characteristics) of the F-35 - and you have assured customers that the team will essentially make educated guesses using online sources, pilot interviews, airshow footage and computer software calculations for things they can't get info on.

"The F-35 may not be 100% accurate, but it will be the most accurate representation of an F-35 in a commercial simulator" - or words to that effect.

On the other end of the spectrum, for aircraft that don't have a lot of supporting documentation due to the age of the aircraft or the way the withdrawal from service of that aircraft was handled, does that mean that ED is going to be more lenient regarding sources for their development (aircraft such as the A-6M Zero, the Gloster Meteor or Messerschmidt Me-262, F-102/106, F-105, Vampire, Venom, EE Lightning, Mirage III, those sorts of planes)? 

High-fidelity mods, such as the A-4E and Su-30, might not have access to all the information - but they can certainly make as good, or an equal, approximation of their subject as ED can with their F-35. Imagine what they could accomplish if given the DCS SDK instead of just modding. I don't disagree that DCS needs to expand but there's a significant gap between mid-era Gen 4 and Gen 5, not to mention 'REDFOR' only has one aircraft that could be considered Gen 4, and it's a fart in the wind vs an F-35. If ED itself has its hands tied for whatever reason, surely it can guide/recruit others to do what it can't?

Edited January 18 by cailean_556

[NineLine]

33 minutes ago, cailean_556 said:

@NineLine I've only just noticed you've moved this thread to 'Chit-Chat' (fair enough, it wasn't really F-35 specific anyway).

 

I didn't move it, not that I disagree with the move either.

34 minutes ago, cailean_556 said:

You stated elsewhere in another thread that if a third-party can demonstrate they can do the research and do the work (as the ED team have with the F-35 development) that ED would consider their offering.

Does that mean that, for example, the Codename FLANKER team (I'm not affiliated with them at all, I just focus on the Su-30 because it's a personal favourite of mine and it ticks a lot of boxes that 'REDFOR' need to counter the increasingly capable BLUFOR module offerings) could approach you, with their mod, and essentially go "Hey, here's our Su-30 mod. We want to get this up to DCS module standard and we're using the same form of sources to inform development as you are for the F-35" and presto, Su-30 FF module in DCS? I know it's more complicated than that, but long and short of it?

110% yes, all they need to do is put together a proposal with their work and send it off to the team for review, Wags is a good place to start, or even me as I can direct someone in the right direction as well. In reference to Ru fighters, we have said that a 3rd Party team outside of the ED offices and in another country could get away with more.

39 minutes ago, cailean_556 said:

On the other end of the spectrum, for aircraft that don't have a lot of supporting documentation due to the age of the aircraft or the way the withdrawal from service of that aircraft was handled, does that mean that ED is going to be more lenient regarding sources for their development (aircraft such as the A-6M Zero, the Gloster Meteor or Messerschmidt Me-262, F-102/106, F-105, Vampire, Venom, EE Lightning, Mirage III, those sorts of planes)? 

The Zero is actually a good example, even the P-47 to a certain degree. The Zero and a lot of documentation for it was destroyed post-war as many know the Japanese really pushed them away from the directions that took them to war. A lot of documentation was lost. Flying Zeros or other Japanese aircraft are hard to come by, especially with their original power plants. We have to fill the holes with other methods, such as CFD Studies, captured aircraft studies, etc. In a weird sort of way its similar to the F-35 except for different reasons. If that makes sense. The P-47 was somewhat similar in that when the original manufacturer was bought, much of their records were destroyed, or thought to be destroyed. Once again we looked towards CFD studies, and well our boss has flown a P-47 so that is helpful. We did end up finding documentation in the end, but again it shows that an aircraft could be done if you can fill the holes in other ways.

Now I know what everyone is thinking... you cannot fill the holes on the F-35. You would be right on some things for sure. But this is also true on anything we modelled, even the A-10C defensive systems are not near what they are capable of, same with others. We do not want them to be either, not because we are lazy or dumb but because we are not out to make a simulation for adversaries to train against, especially important for the F-35. So we use other methods where we find holes in our research, other holes will remain open for good reason and you will have an F-35 that belongs in an air combat game. Nothing in DCS will make you a real-life fighter pilot. BUT DCS will get you closer than anyone can. 

So why I believe and can safely say ED is not doing less with the F-35 because it will be the best F-35 available in any Simulation Game on the market for regular people to buy and fly. That is all we have ever tried to do, from the Ka-50 to the AH-64D. SMEs here and there, including those that work with us will happily tell you what they flew in real life is not 100% what we have done, but what we have done is as close as you can get without joining the military. 

I have spent well over 24 hours now on the subject, but the bottom line is this. We will make it, we know what our customers expect, and we will give you the best you can find. It will improve the DCS environment, it will push us forward and expand our horizons. When the F-35 comes out some will want it, some will not. Like any module we have produced, it will be our best effort, I promise that. 

Thanks!

[cailean_556]

26 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I didn't move it, not that I disagree with the move either.

110% yes, all they need to do is put together a proposal with their work and send it off to the team for review, Wags is a good place to start, or even me as I can direct someone in the right direction as well. In reference to Ru fighters, we have said that a 3rd Party team outside of the ED offices and in another country could get away with more.

The Zero is actually a good example, even the P-47 to a certain degree. The Zero and a lot of documentation for it was destroyed post-war as many know the Japanese really pushed them away from the directions that took them to war. A lot of documentation was lost. Flying Zeros or other Japanese aircraft are hard to come by, especially with their original power plants. We have to fill the holes with other methods, such as CFD Studies, captured aircraft studies, etc. In a weird sort of way its similar to the F-35 except for different reasons. If that makes sense. The P-47 was somewhat similar in that when the original manufacturer was bought, much of their records were destroyed, or thought to be destroyed. Once again we looked towards CFD studies, and well our boss has flown a P-47 so that is helpful. We did end up finding documentation in the end, but again it shows that an aircraft could be done if you can fill the holes in other ways.

Now I know what everyone is thinking... you cannot fill the holes on the F-35. You would be right on some things for sure. But this is also true on anything we modelled, even the A-10C defensive systems are not near what they are capable of, same with others. We do not want them to be either, not because we are lazy or dumb but because we are not out to make a simulation for adversaries to train against, especially important for the F-35. So we use other methods where we find holes in our research, other holes will remain open for good reason and you will have an F-35 that belongs in an air combat game. Nothing in DCS will make you a real-life fighter pilot. BUT DCS will get you closer than anyone can. 

So why I believe and can safely say ED is not doing less with the F-35 because it will be the best F-35 available in any Simulation Game on the market for regular people to buy and fly. That is all we have ever tried to do, from the Ka-50 to the AH-64D. SMEs here and there, including those that work with us will happily tell you what they flew in real life is not 100% what we have done, but what we have done is as close as you can get without joining the military. 

I have spent well over 24 hours now on the subject, but the bottom line is this. We will make it, we know what our customers expect, and we will give you the best you can find. It will improve the DCS environment, it will push us forward and expand our horizons. When the F-35 comes out some will want it, some will not. Like any module we have produced, it will be our best effort, I promise that. 

Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to reply NineLine, I know it must have been a slog to read. Glad to know - in terms of both the mod teams and older aircraft...

So when will ED turn their attention to a Gloster Meteor and an Me-262? 

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, cailean_556 said:

Thanks for taking the time to reply NineLine, I know it must have been a slog to read. Glad to know - in terms of both the mod teams and older aircraft...

So when will ED turn their attention to a Gloster Meteor and an Me-262? 

I believe we have all the research done on the Me-262, but we opted for more interesting WWII aircraft, I hope we get back to it one day. But how good it would be, realistically modelled, I am not sure, but would be fun to find out. 

[Tom Kazansky]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

But how good it would be, realistically modelled, I am not sure, but would be fun to find out. 

To me that's exactly the reason for buying and flying a DCS module. Simulating the shortcomings is as important as simulating an aircraft's strengths.

The revolutionary Me 262 would be extremely interesting in both regards.

(Btw, I hope you at ED get enough information about the shortcomings of the F-35A, that would add a lot to the credibility of this project, imho.)

[Sephyrius]

There's a fair number of competitors offering half baked guesstimate modules of popular airframes.

The high fidelity of the modules is the first, second and third selling point of DCS. Without that, well, see ya later and dont spend it all in one place.

[metzger]

Well, the way I see it, and it started quite some time ago(may be when MAC idea was born) , ED is clearly trying to attract a wider audience even if that means compromising the untill now philosophy to only model what can be modeled to very high degree of accuracy.

They already stated a lot earlier that they developed the new modules based on modular system so they can re-use certain systems with other modules.

Basically, re-skin a viper, op the radar, op the rwr, make it undetectable, mix up the helmet with adding some oped Apache functionalities, add OP irst, OP mws... and you have a dcs version af an F35 for 1-2 years of development.
Since nobody can really say what is accurate and what not, they can always go with 'correct as is' or prove it with public documentation - good luck with that on f35. The perfect module!

Ofc they can alway claim is the best representation of f35 in a hobby sim game, since it's the only one. At the moment, the free f35 mod is the best representation of f35 in a game :)


I personally am done with DCS until atc, better AI and DC are released. By the time this happens, god knows what it will be.


Sent from my SM-G985F using Tapatalk

[Kageseigi]

6 hours ago, NineLine said:

I thought my little speech was nice and that is your take away, hurts man... really hurts. 

 

No intent to cause pain was intended, and if it was caused, then you have my apologies.
So please allow me to clarify my position on the following... hopefully, mostly void of emotion on my part:
 

7 hours ago, NineLine said:

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. 

Generally speaking, I do not believe anyone is against the growth or expansion of DCS. I believe we are all for it. But that is to say, we are all for the success of the DCS that we have known for years. We don't want DCS to change in its nature.

When we have issues about the quality of a module and suggest improvements or changes, ED usually listens, though they may disagree for one reason or another. Many times, it is because there is not enough documented and reliable evidence to support those claims (at least in ED's opinion). It may be frustrating, but at least that is the reason. At least that holds an appearance of quality-control, to set a high standard.

The problem is that nobody or their uncle (generally speaking, of course) believes that ED has enough reliable documentation to model the F-35 and/or its systems to be anywhere near authentically or realistically accurate to a high enough standard that DCS has built its reputation upon. So we fear that this will ultimately transform DCS into something that is not DCS as we know it.

Unfortunately, it's not even a matter of truth. Even if ED did somehow have full documentation of the F-35 and its systems, that may be the truth, but no one believes they do, and it doesn't matter how much ED says it. So it's not about truth, it's about trust.

If ED and its partners could add the F-35 while holding it to the high standards of the past, then I believe the complaints would be few and far between. Bring it on! If they could do the same for the F-22 and the SU-57, please do! I'd love to have EVERY plane that has ever flown included! If you can bring every ship and every tank into the game, that would be wonderful! Being able to fly anywhere on the globe would be amazing! We are not against any of that. Make DCS the greatest, most versatile, and most diverse combat sim in history! But make sure that it stays DCS, living up to those high standards.

Unfortunately, too many developers end up killing their geese that lay golden eggs. They take what was once great, and they twist it into obscurity. And it really wrecks us loyal fans...

Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Brothers In Arms... beloved franchises that were twisted beyond recognition from their original forms.

Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, Saints Row... the devolution of what made them great is saddening. 

We want a stronger, expanded, healthy DCS. But we want it to be DCS, not DCS: War Thunder Edition. We want more newer, advanced planes. We want more older warbirds. We want more Cold War aircraft. We want more maps. But we want them to be held to the high quality that we have come to expect and hope for. That's what makes DCS worth playing. That's what we hope to keep. And that's why the F-35 threatens us... because we see it as the first step to the destruction of what we hold dear. And we want to avoid that if possible. Nobody wants DCS to fail or to stagnate. We want it to thrive. But we want DCS to remain DCS. Only time will tell what will happen.

Unfortunately, such controversial issues do bring out negativity. But much of that negativity is from passion. We get defensive about what we love, and we don't want anyone to threaten it. So that is at least one silver lining... many of these protests and arguments sprout from love for DCS, not from hatred against it. Hopefully, that can result in comradery and brotherhood instead of division.

Anyway, that's my perspective of things. May God bless you and keep you, may God guide ED along the best path, and may DCS remain true to itself! Amen.

Edited January 18 by Kageseigi

[upyr1]

6 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 or WWII etc may seem. If we stagnate we do 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. 

I'd agree with that. There is no doubt in my mind that ED will be able to do the most realistic F-35 for the commercial market. ED's need to grow was the reason that I was excited about MAC, I figured it could be a good gateway to DCS. Also this is why I really hope to see some Land and Naval modules in the future. I don't know what a vin diagram of flight, tank, and naval simmers and wargamers would look like but I know some of us would instabuy a DCS Iowa module (like me). 

 

[Mistermann]

8 hours 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. 

Precisely my point, brother ... people need to understand you're running a business.  Pulling my comment out of context makes me look like I'm against you.  I am not.  We need ED to be a healthy company for the long run. 

[dcn]

Maybe ED can't make much money from us old players, so they need gimmicks to attract new players, a lot of new players.

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, NineLine said:

110% yes, all they need to do is put together a proposal with their work and send it off to the team for review, Wags is a good place to start, or even me as I can direct someone in the right direction as well. In reference to Ru fighters, we have said that a 3rd Party team outside of the ED offices and in another country could get away with more.

8 hours ago, cailean_556 said:

I hope that the Codename Flanker team submit their work. I'm going to ask the guy who helps admin the DCS mods facebook group.

7 hours ago, NineLine said:

Now I know what everyone is thinking... you cannot fill the holes on the F-35. You would be right on some things for sure. But this is also true on anything we modelled, even the A-10C defensive systems are not near what they are capable of, same with others. We do not want them to be either, not because we are lazy or dumb but because we are not out to make a simulation for adversaries to train against, especially important for the F-35. So we use other methods where we find holes in our research, other holes will remain open for good reason and you will have an F-35 that belongs in an air combat game. Nothing in DCS will make you a real-life fighter pilot. BUT DCS will get you closer than anyone can. 

I figure the reason the F-35 module is getting so much hate, is the simple fact that those on the consumer side of DCS simply don't know what ED's standards are and what is actually necessary to get a module done. If figure it is important for people to understand there are two aspects to a simulator procedural and performance. Procedural would be flipping the right switches and pressing all the right buttons.  I know that Jello the Host of the Fighter Pilot Podcast stated that the F/A-18 nailed the procedural. Then there is performance- not only do we have the issue of flight model but also what the avionics can do.  Obviously flight model is vital, obvious. As for the combat avionics, I'd assume that is the hardest thing to get performance data for. Also even when the data is available there is the question of what DCS actually models. I know some things are simplified because the data is top secret and other cases it is to save CPU and RAM. When I saw the module I first wondered if a military customer had asked for it. I saw that wasn't the case but that does raise one question which is how much do MCS (the professional version of DCS) and DCS actually differ?

 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

11 hours ago, NineLine said:

Not everyone likes change or embraces it, but growth in DCS will benefit everyone, allowing us to do more and be more.

Just to be clear, the recent backlash against the F-35 plans are (valid) concerns people outed in light of what DCS can currently offer, and what they know about ED's recent policies.
So they are not against growth at all, they are against growth at the cost of established standards.
You have been very busy trying to assure us this is not the case, and that this will open new doors for DCS... Fine, let's see how it turns out, but it's perfectly normal for people to be concerned and sceptical.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

39 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Just to be clear, the recent backlash against the F-35 plans are (valid) concerns people outed in light of what DCS can currently offer, and what they know about ED's recent policies.
So they are not against growth at all, they are against growth at the cost of established standards.
You have been very busy trying to assure us this is not the case, and that this will open new doors for DCS... Fine, let's see how it turns out, but it's perfectly normal for people to be concerned and sceptical.

This.

If ED wants to assuage concerns, we need additions to the Q&A to discuss how the team will expand upon those elements the F-35 depends heavily upon, EW and stealth, within DCS. After all, EW is far too simple as is RCS. Even a little promise of those receiving improvement prior to the launch of the F-35 would go a long way. Let's not even pretend we'll have it in 2026. If we do? It'll be a repeat of the F-16's launch given what is needed to make the F-35 actually function in DCS.

Otherwise, you'll be asking full price for a less finished module than the existing F-16 or F/A-18 with similar capabilities.

Edited January 18 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Devil 505]

8 hours ago, NineLine said:

I believe we have all the research done on the Me-262, but we opted for more interesting WWII aircraft, I hope we get back to it one day. But how good it would be, realistically modelled, I am not sure, but would be fun to find out. 

@NineLine My friend I am not taking jabs at you or ED, I am just trying to understand how you can possibly convince the community you can make a "realistic" F-35 with no official or approved data on the aircraft from Lockheed Martin, the US Military, or any foreign F-35 customer, but you cannot make a realistic modelled Me-262.  The amount of open-source data from Germany, the United States, historical records/museums and photos/videos of the Me-262 FAR exceed any opinionated nonfactual data you have gathered on the F-35.  If I read the post above correctly, maybe you have all the data and research completed, but opted not to build the module.  ED has absolutely promised the Me-262 to the community for years.  Again, why back out on your commitment?  Be transparent.  If you think it will not sell well and financially it's a bad call, just be honest.  Say we F***ed up telling you we were going to make this, but it's just a bad call right now.  

Let me go on record stating I LOVE the F-35, and we share a close relationship together.  It is not that I do not want to see this aircraft in DCS.  I want DCS world to expand, see new content, and continue making our aviation nerd dreams come true.  I truly want to see you and ED's success and revenue increase 10-fold.  I want this company successful and making stuff until I am too old to play on the computer anymore.  I do not want to see it grow by dishonesty or by treating your customers as if they do not know what they are talking about.  Your standards and commitments to authenticity and accuracy are what have attracted the moth to the flame with all of us former or active military personnel, or anyone else who grew up around these flying legends.  We want confirmation this accuracy, authenticity, and commitment is not being sacrificed to push out less authentic aircraft. 

I want Eagle Dynamics to come out and state/admit the honest truth to the community without fear of backlash or trash talk.  You have clearly taken a lot of that over the past 48 hours, to include a lot by me.  I want you to acknowledge you are doing the best you can to produce an F-35A model to the standard between FC3 and the current standards of every other module. I want you to admit it will be somewhere in between because you honestly are going to have to do your best at guessing what this aircraft can do, not know what it can truly do.  I want you to admit you do not have secret resources feeding you information about the aircraft when that cannot be possibly true without federal law being violated.  I will go on record saying yes, I will try the F-35 out and absolutely believe you will make a beautiful recreation of the jet, authentic and realistic, not a chance.  But I will absolutely be purchasing this module knowing you have NOTHING official on the aircraft and the open-source material you have on the aircraft is 100% something anyone of your customers could go find and read right now.  I too could have spent the last 2 years pulling data off open-source military websites, Lockheed Martin videos released to the public, and airshow accounts to include photos, videos, and sound effects.  In the US the F-35 has a Lightning demo team that performs every year.  Again, does not get you close to knowing how the aircraft operates and what its capabilities truly are.

For the sake of shutting down the backlash, just be honest with how you are developing the aircraft and stop misleading people into believing the F-35 is being built to the standards of say the Viper or the Hornet.  It will only help people go "Ok, I am buying a quality product that will still be bad ass, but it will be somewhere between FC3 standards and the Hornet. I am ok with that. Take my money."  Being humble brother goes a long way.  This will be my last post to you on the subject.  I will shut it down after this and wish you gent's luck.  Again, still a VERY AVID supporter of ED and DCS world.  That will not change.  This was just a small family domestic between us two.

One more thing, since you are promising us the world, I want to see an SR-71 and F-105 in DCS world now.  

[nessuno0505]

11 ore fa, NineLine ha scritto:

The Zero is actually a good example, even the P-47 to a certain degree. The Zero and a lot of documentation for it was destroyed post-war as many know the Japanese really pushed them away from the directions that took them to war. A lot of documentation was lost. Flying Zeros or other Japanese aircraft are hard to come by, especially with their original power plants. We have to fill the holes with other methods, such as CFD Studies, captured aircraft studies, etc. In a weird sort of way its similar to the F-35 except for different reasons. If that makes sense. The P-47 was somewhat similar in that when the original manufacturer was bought, much of their records were destroyed, or thought to be destroyed. Once again we looked towards CFD studies, and well our boss has flown a P-47 so that is helpful. We did end up finding documentation in the end, but again it shows that an aircraft could be done if you can fill the holes in other ways.

Now I know what everyone is thinking... you cannot fill the holes on the F-35. You would be right on some things for sure. But this is also true on anything we modelled, even the A-10C defensive systems are not near what they are capable of, same with others. We do not want them to be either, not because we are lazy or dumb but because we are not out to make a simulation for adversaries to train against, especially important for the F-35. So we use other methods where we find holes in our research, other holes will remain open for good reason and you will have an F-35 that belongs in an air combat game. Nothing in DCS will make you a real-life fighter pilot. BUT DCS will get you closer than anyone can. 

So why I believe and can safely say ED is not doing less with the F-35 because it will be the best F-35 available in any Simulation Game on the market for regular people to buy and fly. That is all we have ever tried to do, from the Ka-50 to the AH-64D. SMEs here and there, including those that work with us will happily tell you what they flew in real life is not 100% what we have done, but what we have done is as close as you can get without joining the military. 

I have spent well over 24 hours now on the subject, but the bottom line is this. We will make it, we know what our customers expect, and we will give you the best you can find. It will improve the DCS environment, it will push us forward and expand our horizons. When the F-35 comes out some will want it, some will not. Like any module we have produced, it will be our best effort, I promise that. 

Thanks!

Interesting. You're basically saying the obvious: DCS is a GAME, no one will become a fighter pilot even with the a-10c or the f/a-18. So you might as well make a black shark 3 with a triple pylon that has never existed in the world, or an f-35 that exists but that you will have to largely invent. The only thing I'm sorry is all the prosopopeia about the missing documentation, when instead many iconic airplanes could have been easily made, if you only had wanted to (and they had been considered profitable).

A comparison with driving games comes to mind: many consider them simulators and most of them are (even real drivers study the tracks they don't know thanks to these games), however no one complains if to make the Red Bull the developer does not have in hand the drawings of Adrian Newey (which he can not have as they are covered by trade secrets). Why shouldn't the same apply to the f-35?

Edited January 18 by nessuno0505

[PLAAF]

I don't get it. If ED doesn't have enough data to make F-35, why push it??!! Why not go after F-22 or F-117? I am sure they can get enough data on those older jets.

Unbelievable. So our DCS is going to evolve into another Warthunder? That hurts, that really hurts.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

56 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

I don't get it. If ED doesn't have enough data to make F-35, why push it??!! Why not go after F-22 or F-117? I am sure they can get enough data on those older jets.

Unbelievable. So our DCS is going to evolve into another Warthunder? That hurts, that really hurts.

F-22 has more classifications than the F-35, though I'm not sure I can say the same about the F-117

They've done quite an aboutface here.

[Devil 505]

30 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

F-22 has more classifications than the F-35

False

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

Interesting. You're basically saying the obvious: DCS is a GAME, no one will become a fighter pilot even with the a-10c or the f/a-18. So you might as well make a black shark 3 with a triple pylon that has never existed in the world, or an f-35 that exists but that you will have to largely invent. The only thing I'm sorry is all the prosopopeia about the missing documentation, when instead many iconic airplanes could have been easily made, if you only had wanted to (and they had been considered profitable).

A comparison with driving games comes to mind: many consider them simulators and most of them are (even real drivers study the tracks they don't know thanks to these games), however no one complains if to make the Red Bull the developer does not have in hand the drawings of Adrian Newey (which he can not have as they are covered by trade secrets). Why shouldn't the same apply to the f-35?

 

Tripple pylon wings were being tested on some Ka-50´s, albeit in a pure aerodynamic capacity. That´s to say that the outer pylons weren´t wired to the PrPNK-80 Rubicon. The Ka-50 #18 did in fact test the K-806 PrPNK, which introduced a digital onboard weapon system (as opposed to PUI-800 which is original to the Ka-50 BS1/BS2 -> IRL Ka-50 #25) that allowed for 6 pylon control, along with different weapon types on the same pylon pairs. To this day, at least two Ka-50s are used to test equipment which later get´s added to the Ka-52 (software/hardware).

 

The fallacy on our Ka-52 BS3, is the composition of all the upgrades at once, and the fact that it uses the older PrPNK-80 Rubicon with PUI-800 with a 6-pylon configuration. Additionally, MWS is represented on the ABRIS, as opposed to a separate MFD (icons are slightly changed optically, due to a requirement of the RU army aviation). With that said, it's a relatively minor of a change, and everything that our Ka-50 has, was tested at some point on either of the Ka-50s. While I generally was and am against it, the "intrusion" into realism is relatively small/unimportant here, even to the purist. The fact that we didn´t get President-S (denoted as L-370 Vitebsk) is another example of how on-the-line this simulation is. 

 

To be quite honest, while F-35 might seem impossible to get right this early, it´s not that at all. Private military analysts (some known ones from Australia) have went ahead and criticized the F-35 program on the grounds of poor aerial performance. The JSF-office have under no instance claimed that the analyst´s findings were wrong, but rather alluded to the fact that incomplete picture of the aircraft capabilities (i.e. the capabilities the military and contractors are reluctant to speak about) is what causes a faulty prediction of F-35 and its capabilities. Summed up, we should known relatively well how the F-35 performs. What we, however, know less about, are the systems onboard, and specifically the significance of the classified ones. If to take the JSF-office/contractors at the face value, the classified software/hardware is what turns the F-35 from poor platform overall, to a supposed force multiplier across the theatre. 

 

If ED states that they got enough information, I believe them. It´s better to wait and see what this turns out to, rather than make claims on before hand, which might turn to be unfounded. Lockheed even has their own F-35 simulated in Prepard3D. Again, this might very well be doable, however I do expect ED to come out with more information when time permits, to assure quality through demonstration to community. Paperwork on aerodynamics/CFD, paperwork on different systems onboard, and most importantly, at least some information around what will be left out due to classification, and what sort of impact one can expect in the performance of the jet (estimate at best). Beyond that, I´m sure they wouldn´t have chosen to create something out of line, even though it sounds like it. (Remember that even though the F-35 is the newest, that newest made its first flight some 25 years ago. It´s not even best, as that seat is occupied by F-22.).

Edited January 18 by zerO_crash

[Pipe]

ED needs to do this for Redfor

“You must think in Russian”

Edited January 18 by Pipe

[Devil 505]

2 hours ago, Pipe said:

ED needs to do this for Redfor

“You must think in Russian”

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pipe]

or this

[MAXsenna]

To be honest, I believe quite a few rotor heads "secretly" wish for Bluethunder, (we do have the Gazelle), Airwolf and the Commanche.