And now, what about DCS ?

[hotrod525]

Hello folks,

To Mods : please delete if i'm like the 4743625612th threads about it , TY

 

So now that the box is open with the upcoming DCS F35A module, like most of you i feel that a "line" have been cross. To be honest, i realy dont care, im quite sure that it will be as complex and as close as it could be. In the end of the day, from 4 to 5th gen avionics have not changed much in term of user interface. The computing power have, but there isnt many way of showing fuel on a MFD. So i have no doubt about the fidelity, over all, etc.

 

My axis on this is more "documentation" and "other self impose rules" from E.D.;

Why can't i have a faked Datalink system that would link my F18C to ships like they would IRL or have E3 acting as hub to "connect" A10C, F16 and F18 / etc ? Or why you limit some functions of DL in 64D (As mention in a interview a while back) ? You could insert the thousands of request peoples had that have been rejected.

EW have been asked for years, for years we where told "documentation" & "sensitivity", wich are good points. On the other end, i havent ever seen anybody requesting a super duper deep EW in DCS, just some "abritrary" / "faked" effect, still rejected.

And here we are with a module that will litteraly be a super-duper-sensitive stuff from sensor to airframe base on OSINT and pilot feelings.

 

Where are the new boundaries ?

[Zebra1-1]

57 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

Hello folks,

To Mods : please delete if i'm like the 4743625612th threads about it , TY

 

So now that the box is open with the upcoming DCS F35A module, like most of you i feel that a "line" have been cross. To be honest, i realy dont care, im quite sure that it will be as complex and as close as it could be. In the end of the day, from 4 to 5th gen avionics have not changed much in term of user interface. The computing power have, but there isnt many way of showing fuel on a MFD. So i have no doubt about the fidelity, over all, etc.

 

My axis on this is more "documentation" and "other self impose rules" from E.D.;

Why can't i have a faked Datalink system that would link my F18C to ships like they would IRL or have E3 acting as hub to "connect" A10C, F16 and F18 / etc ? Or why you limit some functions of DL in 64D (As mention in a interview a while back) ? You could insert the thousands of request peoples had that have been rejected.

EW have been asked for years, for years we where told "documentation" & "sensitivity", wich are good points. On the other end, i havent ever seen anybody requesting a super duper deep EW in DCS, just some "abritrary" / "faked" effect, still rejected.

And here we are with a module that will litteraly be a super-duper-sensitive stuff from sensor to airframe base on OSINT and pilot feelings.

 

Where are the new boundaries ?

 

There are several threads on the subject already, but why does there have to be "new boundaries"? This is more than likely an exception to the rule. I'm guessing that it was most likely requested. That doesn't (and shouldn't) mean that any boundaries have or should be shifted. I would think of this module being more of an FC3 module than an FF module.

[Dragon1-1]

It'll be something between FF and FC3, I guess. A sort of "mid-fidelity" aircraft, with systems guesstimated from known information, and FM done with CFD software. After all, we do have quite a bit of aerodynamic modeling tools and the modern aircraft insulate the pilot from most complex behavior at the edges of the envelope with their complex (and all-powerful, no "Top Gun switch" in the F-35 AFAIK) FBW limiters.

It might also open the door to the F-22, which would actually be appropriate to DCS timeline. It's just about as classified, but it's older, and maybe there's some docs out there. Also, depending on development constraints, I hope the module will be expanded to include B and C. VTOL is cool (and our only VTOL jet so far was made by a company that's currently in hot water), and the C can do carrier traps.

[HoBGoBLiNzx3]

How we could get an F-35 but not a 2 seater Super Hornet (which wouldn't take much considering how far the F-18 has come) kinda sucks but hey.. what can ya do...

[pimp]

What if ED came out and said we'd rather do a F35A instead of a Super Hornet? Would that make you feel better?

[HoBGoBLiNzx3]

11 minutes ago, pimp said:

What if ED came out and said we'd rather do a F35A instead of a Super Hornet? Would that make you feel better?

They just did... Are you slow or?

[pimp]

23 minutes ago, HoBGoBLiNzx3 said:

They just did... Are you slow or?

Look, I'm not here to insult anybody. I'm just asking a simple question.

[Badger1-1]

F35 potentially attracts a much larger audience, new customers and in the end, makes them more money. But still, I wish that this new level we have reached, brings us more Redfor and also more plane in general.

 

[Razorback]

The announcement of the F-35 certainly crossed a line.
As far as I'm concerned, there will be a before and an after to the announcement of the development of this highly classified aircraft, which will undoubtedly be a very random module in terms of flight behaviour, avionics and weapons.
In short, we're a long way from the hardcore simulation of DCS.
- We can't have Stinger on the Apache, but we will have an F-35.
- We can't have UPK-32 on the Hind, but we will have an F-35.
And those are just two examples.
What do I expect from DCS in 2025? NOTHING!
We'll probably get a Central Europe map, and depending on how this map will be presented, that'll probably be my only payment of the year.... And if we end up with the same kind of announcement as for the AFG map, with the risk of totally unacceptable changes to the timetable, I'll pass on that too.

Proposing a MIG-29 and an F-15C was totally sufficient for me.
This F-35 thing is totally crazy compared to what ED has always advocated in its simulation management.
When you read the criticisms on a lot of forums, I don't seem to be the only one to draw this conclusion.
Nor to see clearly that the most important thing now seems to be to replenish ED's money coffers by continuing to offer us unfinished products.
As someone who flies exclusively on helicopters, I've got everything I need. Thank you for all your hard work and good luck for the future....but for my part, I've lost my faith after more than 17 years on Lock On, FC and DCS.

[HoBGoBLiNzx3]

1 hour ago, pimp said:

Look, I'm not here to insult anybody. I'm just asking a simple question.

You clearly were by the way you worded your question but I'll bite. No, I wouldn't feel better if they did. It would probably be the opposite.. What I would really want them them to to do is come out and state that there won't be any more modules because all of their employees are working on the Dynamic Campaign. Instead of having small teams that slowly make progress on things. 

[Rongor]

I think this thread entirely runs on subjective feelings and has nothing to do with anything factual around what ED is doing.

 

ED and its 3rd party devs are creating modules for DCS, depending on the access of documentation. Nothing has changed.

Just carry on and enjoy DCS.

Edited January 18 by Rongor

[pimp]

1 hour ago, HoBGoBLiNzx3 said:

You clearly were by the way you worded your question but I'll bite. No, I wouldn't feel better if they did. It would probably be the opposite.. What I would really want them them to to do is come out and state that there won't be any more modules because all of their employees are working on the Dynamic Campaign. Instead of having small teams that slowly make progress on things. 

I really was just asking a question. I apologize about the wording. Didn't mean anything by it, but you're obviously in your feelings. So like @Rongor stated, "Just carry on and enjoy DCS"

[HoBGoBLiNzx3]

4 hours ago, pimp said:

I really was just asking a question. I apologize about the wording. Didn't mean anything by it, but you're obviously in your feelings. So like @Rongor stated, "Just carry on and enjoy DCS"

I'm not "in my feelings" I was just responding to an rudely worded comment. Apology accepted though and hope to see you in the skies! Clearly a misunderstanding. 

[ProteinePlus]

I have to agree with the OP. I fear that trying to simulate the F-35 breaks my suspension of disbelief with the sim. Now I just doubt how realistic “full fidelity”planes are…

[DD_fruitbat]

48 minutes ago, ProteinePlus said:

I have to agree with the OP. I fear that trying to simulate the F-35 breaks my suspension of disbelief with the sim. Now I just doubt how realistic “full fidelity”planes are…

If you thought that full fidelity planes were 100% realistic before this announcement, then I've got some bad news for you....

DCS is the best game there is at simulating these planes, closer to reality than anything else out there (by some margin), but its no where close to 100% reality. There's still loads that they can't put in 100% accurately even if they had every bit of information because of things like jail. 

Nothing has changed with the announcement of fat amy.

Edited January 18 by DD_fruitbat

[rkk01]

On 1/18/2025 at 12:45 AM, Rongor said:

I think this thread entirely runs on subjective feelings and has nothing to do with anything factual around what ED is doing.

 

ED and its 3rd party devs are creating modules for DCS, depending on the access of documentation. Nothing has changed.

Just carry on and enjoy DCS.

What isn’t subjective is to state that other potential modules have been rejected on the basis of classification, documentation, available flying airframes for validation…

I’m thinking of stuff like:

- anything British… e.g. Sea Harrier with still classified Blue Fox radar

- WW2 aircraft with no / limited flying examples… Me-262, Hawker Typhoon etc

- Almost anything Redfor from the last 40 years

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

29 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

What isn’t subjective is to state that other potential modules have been rejected on the basis of classification, documentation, available flying airframes for validation…

I’m thinking of stuff like:

- anything British… e.g. Sea Harrier with still classified Blue Fox radar

- WW2 aircraft with no / limited flying examples… Me-262, Hawker Typhoon etc

- Almost anything Redfor from the last 40 years

It'll certainly be a lot harder to excuse those, now.

[ProteinePlus]

hace 5 horas, DD_fruitbat dijo:

If you thought that full fidelity planes were 100% realistic before this announcement, then I've got some bad news for you....

DCS is the best game there is at simulating these planes, closer to reality than anything else out there (by some margin), but its no where close to 100% reality. There's still loads that they can't put in 100% accurately even if they had every bit of information because of things like jail. 

Nothing has changed with the announcement of fat amy.

I disagree. This is a total flip flop on their previous philosophy as communicated by themselves. Everything changes and I’m personally not happy with this new direction. . 

[Dragon1-1]

15 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

There's still loads that they can't put in 100% accurately even if they had every bit of information because of things like jail. 

Hardly "loads", especially when we're talking, say, the F-86D, which is long unclassified in every tiny detail.