Su-35 Instead of F-35

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, Supernova-III said:

…it may help ED to…finally release my favorite Su-25…

Hope springs eternal…

Edited January 28 by Ironhand

[cfrag]

4 hours ago, Supernova-III said:

Anyway guys, how do you know if we actually have accurate simulation of existing planes? How much of us flown F-14/15/16/18?

Indeed. More importantly, how many of us WANT an accurate simulation? There are so many annoyances and RL restrictions that I do not want in a game. DCS is for entertainment. I can do without

• restrooms being installed at the start and end of a flight. Same for restaurants.
• hour-long METAR briefings and debriefings
• Bottle-to-Throttle 8 hours (yikes! -- 8 inches in DCS for me)
• Demotions/demerits for not following procedures
• Flights cancelled because the bird wasn't flightworthy
• Bad weather when I wanted good weather
• Waiting 2 hours for a slot. In a hot cockpit. With the engine off (no A/C) because some jerk decreed that we want to be more environmental friendly. 
• Getting yelled at because being at an unfamiliar airfield -- and Junior found your Jeppesens last night and took them to bed with him
• Failing a medical and being grounded for 4 months
• Getting too old for g-loads, and just sitting in the cramped cockpit hurts
• Knowing that out there are Jerks who want to kill you. Literally. With missiles and stuff. 

Luckily we are so far removed from reality in DCS that flying again is a joyous event. We don't want reality. We want entertainment. With some semblance (a veneer, really) of reality. I don't bother so much whether the experience is realistic. It shouldn't be. It mustn't be. It should be fun. So yeah. Hit me with a fantasy Fat Amy or Superflank. And make it fun!

Edited January 28 by cfrag

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

restrooms being installed at the start and end of a flight. Same for restaurants.

Are you saying you don't enjoy watching and greeting the virtual passengers board the plane in that other sim? 

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Supernova-III said:

Most of us have a very limited knowledge how it should work.

Speak for yourself. We have NATOPS and -1, maybe some -34, we have performance charts, weapon and storage loadouts and restrictions, drag indexes, weight and balance docs, additional test data or academic docs on similar hardware, real pilot statements and checks, some CFD here and there... all enough to make it within 5% of error, which is considered very good for a simulation and if something is not like IRL - sooner or later someone points it out, finds a real video or mention yet another hard evidence and reports it.

Contrary to what @cfrag said I want realism in simulation. Realism is fun for me. We probably have different definitions on realism and simulation though. I know DCS and my hardware limitations and try to operate within what we have.

[theIRIEone]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

Indeed. More importantly, how many of us WANT an accurate simulation? There are so many annoyances and RL restrictions that I do not want in a game. DCS is for entertainment. I can do without

• restrooms being installed at the start and end of a flight. Same for restaurants.
• hour-long METAR briefings and debriefings
• Bottle-to-Throttle 8 hours (yikes! -- 8 inches in DCS for me)
• Demotions/demerits for not following procedures
• Flights cancelled because the bird wasn't flightworthy
• Bad weather when I wanted good weather
• Waiting 2 hours for a slot. In a hot cockpit. With the engine off (no A/C) because some jerk decreed that we want to be more environmental friendly. 
• Getting yelled at because being at an unfamiliar airfield -- and Junior found your Jeppesens last night and took them to bed with him
• Failing a medical and being grounded for 4 months
• Getting too old for g-loads, and just sitting in the cramped cockpit hurts
• Knowing that out there are Jerks who want to kill you. Literally. With missiles and stuff. 

Luckily we are so far removed from reality in DCS that flying again is a joyous event. We don't want reality. We want entertainment. With some semblance (a veneer, really) of reality. I don't bother so much whether the experience is realistic. It shouldn't be. It mustn't be. It should be fun. So yeah. Hit me with a fantasy Fat Amy or Superflank. And make it fun!

I kinda agree with everything said here, minus the "some jerk decreed that we want to be more environmental friendly." line...

I don't like to discuss politics in this sphere and i think it's not allowed anyways, but yea, i strongly have to disagree with that one.


Besides, i think there is "evidence" speaking for and against a "proper" simulation in DCS, however with the arrival of the F-35 there's not much room for doubt anymore:

DCS never was as realistic as ED claimed it to be and the whole "there is no documentation so we're not gonna do it" was a convenient excuse for not altering their development plans in favor for "module fixes" or wishlist items..

I mean even if DCS always was "realistic", it surely is not anymore.. and i'd think certain things always been guesswork: radar acquisition ranges, missile performance etc etc.

However, with the 5th gen of things, there will be a WHOLE LOT MORE guesswork and relying on pilot's quotes (eg: "when press asks you know what to say") than ever before, and i fear we're slowly moving into WT "what if" territory here, leaving the realms of "as real as it gets on a PC".

[MAXsenna]

13 minutes ago, theIRIEone said:

I kinda agree with everything said here, minus the "some jerk decreed that we want to be more environmental friendly." line...

I don't like to discuss politics in this sphere and i think it's not allowed anyways, but yea, i strongly have to disagree with that one.

That's your prerogative. Imagine where I'm sitting right now. 10.000 years ago I would have had 3000 meters of ice on top of me. Damn my ancestors sure loved to burn down all those trees to make all that ice melt away! A 1000 years ago, the local glaciers were smaller than they are today. Greenland is such a hot topic. Ever pondered why the Vikings gave it that name?

Can't fight the sun honey!  

[theIRIEone]

21 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

That's your prerogative. Imagine where I'm sitting right now. 10.000 years ago I would have had 3000 meters of ice on top of me. Damn my ancestors sure loved to burn down all those trees to make all that ice melt away! A 1000 years ago, the local glaciers were smaller than they are today. Greenland is such a hot topic. Ever pondered why the Vikings gave it that name?

Can't fight the sun honey!  

Fam, this is the DCS Forums...

Do  you really wanna start arguing about climate change here, or rather focus on the rest i (and other ppl) wrote?
While i feel compelled to answer to those claims, i think it's better to not escalate any further.

Discretion is the wiser part of valor, or whatever they say...

[MAXsenna]

2 minutes ago, theIRIEone said:

Discretion is the wiser part of valor, or whatever they say...

That's why you didn't reply to my other post?  

[theIRIEone]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

That's why you didn't reply to my other post?  

What other post?

[wilbur81]

On 1/18/2025 at 4:43 AM, bies said:

Because making F-35 without full documentation already sparks controversy - and there's a WHOLE LOT of information about the F-35 publicly available, and openness of the producer to share all non-classified components, logic, workflows, HOTAS, avionics etc., as this is world-wide exported all NATO fighter, with 1100 airframes produced already.

At the same time there is close to zero Su-35 information available, everything would be totally made up, its avionics, MFD pages, weapon systems, HOTAS, logic, workflows, functions - it would be a sad joke. Completely fictional abomination, not better than amateur-made MODs already free to download.

"Marked as Solution." 

[Dragon1-1]

40 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Greenland is such a hot topic. Ever pondered why the Vikings gave it that name?

Marketing. It wasn't exactly green back then, either, but they wanted to attract settlers. There was a warm period at the time, but it wasn't quite that warm.

[MAXsenna]

6 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Marketing. It wasn't exactly green back then, either, but they wanted to attract settlers. There was a warm period at the time, but it wasn't quite that warm.

 

[cfrag]

11 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

There was a warm period at the time, but it wasn't quite that warm.

Well, they didn't call it "Warmland". Even Erik the Red (who wasn't squeamish when it came to the truth by a long shot) knew that people wouldn't let that slide (on top of his banishment for murder). So in a bit of shrewd middle-age marketing, he called it "Greenland". Which also makes a nice contrast to his previous home, Iceland.

None of this is relevant to DCS (until we get a GIUK map, that is), so I'll now shut up. 

You are welcome  

 

Edited January 29 by cfrag

[Supernova-III]

13 hours ago, draconus said:

Speak for yourself.

why? I'm pretty sure I'm not alone

 

13 hours ago, draconus said:

We have NATOPS and -1, maybe some -34, we have performance charts, weapon and storage loadouts and restrictions, drag indexes, weight and balance docs, additional test data or academic docs on similar hardware, real pilot statements and checks, some CFD here and there... all enough to make it within 5% of error

This is mostly true. But 5% Compared to what? To reality? Don't you mix accuracy of solving differential equations and "closeness to reality"? How to even express that closeness to reality? How do you convince yourself that it's closer to/further from reality with one or another update? I believe, if you as a player haven't witnessed the real thing, you have no ability to recognize that something is close to real. Doesn't matter how complex your equations are and how accurate they solved. It should make the model closer to reality, but most people cannot recognize this. I'm really interested, what you'd answer to this.

 

@draconus I know, for example, that real Su-25 has a "narrow gauge" which makes taxiing a bit trickier, but it also makes takeoff and run after landing very dangerous (especially with crosswind). In DCS I can say the same thing about Su-25, but does it mean that it's close to reality? IMO, no. It's entirely possible that real rook is dangerous in different way in reality, compared to DCS.

Edited January 29 by Supernova-III

[draconus]

15 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

But 5% Compared to what?

To the docs - perf charts and test data. Even those are not really representing one and only truth as some good RL pilot mentioned because every aircraft, even with the next serial number, is a bit different. So are engines. This is actually modeled in F-14 afaik. So there can be some deviations from data we have and that's fine and expected. Some things are hard or even impossible to be simulated in a sim but whatever can be - should be.

The manuals tell you almost all how aircraft flies, what are its special quirks, what is hard and what can kill you. In DCS we will test the aircraft under conditions no sane test pilot would agree to, so obviously the data is lacking here and the physics model will have to suffice.

[Supernova-III]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

To the docs - perf charts and test data. Even those are not really representing one and only truth as some good RL pilot mentioned because every aircraft, even with the next serial number, is a bit different. So are engines. This is actually modeled in F-14 afaik. So there can be some deviations from data we have and that's fine and expected. Some things are hard or even impossible to be simulated in a sim but whatever can be - should be.

The manuals tell you almost all how aircraft flies, what are its special quirks, what is hard and what can kill you. In DCS we will test the aircraft under conditions no sane test pilot would agree to, so obviously the data is lacking here and the physics model will have to suffice.

got it. So it feels better for you knowing that there's just 5% deviation from the docs?

[Exorcet]

On 1/28/2025 at 11:36 AM, cfrag said:

Luckily we are so far removed from reality in DCS that flying again is a joyous event. We don't want reality. We want entertainment. With some semblance (a veneer, really) of reality. I don't bother so much whether the experience is realistic. It shouldn't be. It mustn't be. It should be fun. So yeah. Hit me with a fantasy Fat Amy or Superflank. And make it fun!

I kind of understand the sentiment, but realism is the entertainment. When developers take the realism out and we get something like Ace Combat, the fun leaves with it. DCS is a simulator though and that naturally comes with the ability to turn things on and off unlike reality so the end product can be altered to fit different wants.

Personally I want to see everything as an option at least. A simulator doesn't have to enforce realism all the time, and users may seek different scopes of realism like airframe simulation vs life of a pilot simulation, but it should offer maximum realism for those seeking it. I'm here to get as close as possible to flying X, Y and, Z. Annoying drawbacks included.

 

  

6 hours ago, Supernova-III said:

why? I'm pretty sure I'm not alone

 

This is mostly true. But 5% Compared to what? To reality? Don't you mix accuracy of solving differential equations and "closeness to reality"? How to even express that closeness to reality? How do you convince yourself that it's closer to/further from reality with one or another update? I believe, if you as a player haven't witnessed the real thing, you have no ability to recognize that something is close to real. Doesn't matter how complex your equations are and how accurate they solved. It should make the model closer to reality, but most people cannot recognize this. I'm really interested, what you'd answer to this.

 

  You don't need to have first hand experience. A good deal of the design process for these aircraft avoid reality. Computer models aren't perfect, but they're quite good at this point. We know how most of the physics works and beyond that there is information out there about the end product that skips the how and why and simply tells you what it does. You can reference these things and you'll know if you're on the right track or not.

 

Edited January 29 by Exorcet

[Fitzcarraldo]

Hot take: If DCS was in a better technical state with less bugs and more features, if ED would be better at addressing customers concerns and do it faster, if EA wouldn't mean waiting many years for critical updates, then -i believe- people wouldn't be so emotional about the F-35.
I have no interest in that flying ipad, but i'm confident that it won't ruin DCS more than years of unaddressed bugs and heaps of technical debt ever could. Be concerned about that!
Make your voice heard, and demand that ED delivers on core features, bug fixes and performances optimization before they release another EA module. Then enjoy your module of choice and ignore the 35. Those with a less refined taste will buy it and hopefully have fun as well. ED gets sales. Everybody wins.

[LucShep]

No no no no.... you're all wrong....  what we need is the Sopwith Camel  !!!!!1111oneoneone

Plenty documentation and no geopolitical  issues...  

Just imagine the engine soundtrack, cockpit textures, and the wing cables flexing effects....! 
 

Edited January 29 by LucShep

[T4buk]

On 1/18/2025 at 11:38 AM, razo+r said:

Blah blah joking blah blah.

I find this ridiculous!

Nothing more creativ? then.. STRG+C STRG+V

if you dont like my post go buy F-35! shot down some 3ed gen. planes and be happy!

[upyr1]

On 1/29/2025 at 11:51 AM, LucShep said:

No no no no.... you're all wrong....  what we need is the Sopwith Camel  !!!!!1111oneoneone

Plenty documentation and no geopolitical  issues...  

Just imagine the engine soundtrack, cockpit textures, and the wing cables flexing effects....! 
 

awesome