It's time for ED to see the opinions of players

[dcn]

Do you support ED launching F-35 module?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Given how many "CAN WE GET THE F-35!!?" requests have been made, they already know the players' opinion.

[toni]

I support it, but conditioned to a Naval version behind.

[Df555]

There's really nothing to discuss here. If you don't like the F-35, that's your right, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to get it. I don't understand all the negativity surrounding this module. Remember how much the missiles' characteristics have changed over time? But for some reason I haven't heard so much outrage that they're not realistic. The most important thing here is that they continue to be upgraded and become closer to reality, just like the modules.

We'll die of old age before we get a 100% realistic F-35 simulator. But ED can give us a 60-70% realistic one right now. There simply can't be any downsides. For the rest of the world, it may be another unrealistic flying machine, but for some people it may be a dream.

Edited January 18 by Df555

[upyr1]

I know the sunk cost argument is a fallacy however with how long things stay in EA and how much things change over the EA period they might get better data. Also there's the fact people modern modules they might as well. They could make a few bucks and possibly grow the user base some.

I'd be lying if I said the only lighting or Panther I wanted in DCS were the P-38, English Electric and F9F though I expected to see those before the battle Penguin. 

23 minutes ago, toni said:

I support it, but conditioned to a Naval version behind.

I think they have plans for Charlie and Bravo I'd love to see those too

[cfrag]

 

3 hours ago, dcn said:

Do you support ED launching F-35 module?

I believe that is a supremely silly question. ED know that there is immense buyer potential in an F-35 module. People want iconic planes, and things that go boom. And they want to dominate. What better module to sell them than Fat Amy?

Whatever existing players/customers think is completely irrelevant to ED - they live and die on a one-off sales structure. Past sales are yesterday, let's focus on the tomorrow! It makes a lot of financial sense to sell this module even if it makes the majority of the existing user base blue in the face. And it's also easy to predict what module is likely to be next: the Raptor or F-117. DCS is a game, and this new module will hopefully finally shut up those annoying rivet-counting pretentious Holier-Than-Thoughs that look down their winkled nose, proclaiming that "DCS is a simulator, not a game". It always was a game, and the F-35 to them is what the "Final Experiment" is to flat earthers: the end of their little make-belief world. Welcome to the real world. And you know what? If it's fun, it's good. DCS is a game.

So, am I happy about the F-35? Not really. But more importantly: who gives a damn what I think? It makes financial sense to ED; check mate.

[MAXsenna]

6 minutes ago, cfrag said:

And it's also easy to predict what module is likely to be next: the Raptor or F-117.

I know I'm repeating myself, it's been pretty much confirmed that the F-117 is in the works/planned by a 3rd party. Probably IFE as their next module after the Gina will be an American plane used in a "recent" conflict in Europe. As for ED, whether the Raptor is incoming after Fat Amy, will probably depend on the sales. While believe you're correct. And will probably be made by the same team. Let's hope the MiG-29 sells well, so that team can move to Su-27 or another Russian jet.  

[The Gryphon]

The F-35 have my full support.

Even if Eagle Dynamics only make the F-35 40% realistic, it will be 40% of DCS quality. I know the sounds will be amazing, I know the cockpit will look great, I know the weapons will function, air to air refueling  etc.

And there is a high chance that the helmet monunted display will function, the flight dynamics to be accurate and radar simulation to be pretty ok (stealth mechanics).

And that is all I need to get my 5:th generation fighter experience.

If Eagle Dynamics manage to pull even more off, well I am pretty much in heaven from that point.

 

[rajdary]

8 minutes ago, The Gryphon said:

The F-35 have my full support.

Even if Eagle Dynamics only make the F-35 40% realistic, it will be 40% of DCS quality. I know the sounds will be amazing, I know the cockpit will look great, I know the weapons will function, air to air refueling  etc.

And there is a high chance that the helmet monunted display will function, the flight dynamics to be accurate and radar simulation to be pretty ok (stealth mechanics).

And that is all I need to get my 5:th generation fighter experience.

If Eagle Dynamics manage to pull even more off, well I am pretty much in heaven from that point.

 

Plus, with time, that 40% will go on improving to 50%, 60% etc… until finally we have something very accurate.

[Creampie]

3 hours ago, Df555 said:

There's really nothing to discuss here. If you don't like the F-35, that's your right, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to get it. I don't understand all the negativity surrounding this module. Remember how much the missiles' characteristics have changed over time? But for some reason I haven't heard so much outrage that they're not realistic. The most important thing here is that they continue to be upgraded and become closer to reality, just like the modules.

We'll die of old age before we get a 100% realistic F-35 simulator. But ED can give us a 60-70% realistic one right now. There simply can't be any downsides. For the rest of the world, it may be another unrealistic flying machine, but for some people it may be a dream.

 

It's quite simple for a lot of us; (From a red enjoying PVP perspective) 

Put the EF & F35 aside for a moment

There is zero parity in a counter-part, F18/16/14/etc > jf/27/29/etc by a large margin

 

Now bring the EF & F35 back in;

F35/EF > F18/16/14/etc > jf/27/29/etc

 

Even the PVP aspect aside, Many of us love aircraft other than NATO ones. 

[The Gryphon]

3 minutes ago, rajdary said:

Plus, with time, that 40% will go on improving to 50%, 60% etc… until finally we have something very accurate.

Exactly. With some luck this module will age like a good wine, tasting even better as the years pass.

[AndyJWest]

Pointless poll. Even ignoring the obvious issues with self-selected participation & sample size in something like this, they've already made the decision.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Given how many "CAN WE GET THE F-35!!?" requests have been made, they already know the players' opinion.

I never asked for the F-35 but then again I simply didn't think that there would be enough data to make anything beyond an AI F-35. I'm not complaining about the F-35 just shocked and looking forward to it getting released.  

3 hours ago, Df555 said:

There's really nothing to discuss here. If you don't like the F-35, that's your right, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to get it. I don't understand all the negativity surrounding this module. Remember how much the missiles' characteristics have changed over time? But for some reason I haven't heard so much outrage that they're not realistic. The most important thing here is that they continue to be upgraded and become closer to reality, just like the modules.

We'll die of old age before we get a 100% realistic F-35 simulator. But ED can give us a 60-70% realistic one right now. There simply can't be any downsides.

Then as I have brought up out of that 30%-40% that will be redacted what are things that ED simplifies to begin with? EW is simplified for starters, 9line said as much. 

[Furiz]

4 minutes ago, rajdary said:

Plus, with time, that 40% will go on improving to 50%, 60% etc… until finally we have something very accurate.

This exactly,

Because if there is no attempt then there is no success.

To add, this opens doors to other modern jets and shows others nations/companies that are so secretive about their aircraft that ED can make modern aircraft simulation without revealing crucial info to the public.

Simulator game is great platform to recruit young pilots to airforce, and many countries are struggling to get pilots.

 

5 minutes ago, Creampie said:

It's quite simple for a lot of us; (From a red enjoying PVP perspective) 

Put the EF & F35 aside for a moment

There is zero parity in a counter-part, F18/16/14/etc > jf/27/29/etc by a large margin

 

Now bring the EF & F35 back in;

F35/EF > F18/16/14/etc > jf/27/29/etc

 

Even the PVP aspect aside, Many of us love aircraft other than NATO ones. 

ED stated many many times, they are not going for balance in PvP, servers can do that by excluding certain aircraft etc. They are simulating aircraft that they can make and have enough interest in. It would be foolish of them to skip such an opportunity so PvP guys can have balance.

There is a lot of interest in F-35.

Lack of info on redfor jets is not EDs fault, they can't do anything about it.

for example I'd love to see Rafale, it is my favourite jet, so I guess my side is EU. But no joy with Rafale cause not enough info. And how many EU modern jets do you see in DCS, start counting with low fidelity then move up to full fidelity ones. Ill help, closest we have to modern EU jet is M-2000C (fox 3? = nope), so that is 1, see any others? At least you have low fidelity redfor stuff, some even have fox3. We have no fox3 EU jet in DCS atm. EF is coming and that is great.

Oh and AI jets from EU? Rafale, Gripen, EF (coming) we could really benefit from AI versions there so we can at least create some interesting conflicts.

It seems we can only get US modern stuff in DCS, but ED is not to blame there its simply lack of info.

[upyr1]

21 minutes ago, Creampie said:

 

It's quite simple for a lot of us; (From a red enjoying PVP perspective) 

Put the EF & F35 aside for a moment

There is zero parity in a counter-part, F18/16/14/etc > jf/27/29/etc by a large margin

 

Now bring the EF & F35 back in;

F35/EF > F18/16/14/etc > jf/27/29/etc

 

Even the PVP aspect aside, Many of us love aircraft other than NATO ones. 

With any luck this will inspire other developers to do modern Red for which a lot of people want.

[Vee.A]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

This exactly,

Because if there is no attempt then there is no success.

To add, this opens doors to other modern jets and shows others nations/companies that are so secretive about their aircraft that ED can make modern aircraft simulation without revealing crucial info to the public.

Simulator game is great platform to recruit young pilots to airforce, and many countries are struggling to get pilots.

 

ED stated many many times, they are not going for balance in PvP, servers can do that by excluding certain aircraft etc. They are simulating aircraft that they can make and have enough interest in. It would be foolish of them to skip such an opportunity so PvP guys can have balance.

There is a lot of interest in F-35.

Lack of info on redfor jets is not EDs fault, they can't do anything about it.

for example I'd love to see Rafale, it is my favourite jet, so I guess my side is EU. But no joy with Rafale cause not enough info. And how many EU modern jets do you see in DCS, start counting with low fidelity then move up to full fidelity ones. Ill help, closest we have to modern EU jet is M-2000C (fox 3? = nope), so that is 1, see any others? At least you have low fidelity redfor stuff, some even have fox3. We have no fox3 EU jet in DCS atm. EF is coming and that is great.

Oh and AI jets from EU? Rafale, Gripen, EF (coming) we could really benefit from AI versions there so we can at least create some interesting conflicts.

It seems we can only get US modern stuff in DCS, but ED is not to blame there its simply lack of info.

I do believe the best solution to many of the "balance" or scenario issues across eras is simply more AI units. Apparently CubanAce is working on a AI Su-57 to submit to ED, which would be very helpful. As for PVP, I don't think any good ME would allow F-35's to roam around free in the mission. It'll obviously always be for more creative missions.

[upyr1]

12 minutes ago, Furiz said:

This exactly,

Because if there is no attempt then there is no success.

To add, this opens doors to other modern jets and shows others nations/companies that are so secretive about their aircraft that ED can make modern aircraft simulation without revealing crucial info to the public.

Simulator game is great platform to recruit young pilots to airforce, and many countries are struggling to get pilots.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Furiz said:

ED stated many many times, they are not going for balance in PvP, servers can do that by excluding certain aircraft etc. They are simulating aircraft that they can make and have enough interest in. It would be foolish of them to skip such an opportunity so PvP guys can have balance.

There is a lot of interest in F-35.

Lack of info on redfor jets is not EDs fault, they can't do anything about it.

for example I'd love to see Rafale, it is my favourite jet, so I guess my side is EU. But no joy with Rafale cause not enough info. And how many EU modern jets do you see in DCS, start counting with low fidelity then move up to full fidelity ones. Ill help, closest we have to modern EU jet is M-2000C (fox 3? = nope), so that is 1, see any others? At least you have low fidelity redfor stuff, some even have fox3. We have no fox3 EU jet in DCS atm. EF is coming and that is great.

Oh and AI jets from EU? Rafale, Gripen, EF (coming) we could really benefit from AI versions there so we can at least create some interesting conflicts.

It seems we can only get US modern stuff in DCS, but ED is not to blame there its simply lack of info.

I know ED has said they aren't going for balance, that is up to the mission designers. I don't blame ED for saying lack of information. There are some aircraft out there which we may never get enough information for which is why I ask for decent mod support. My ideal would be for the user files section to act as a repository for some common mod manager. Then I know some mods like project flanker you have an A2A version and an A2G version I'm wondering if that could be possible to fix.

 

 

[upyr1]

11 minutes ago, Vee.A said:

I do believe the best solution to many of the "balance" or scenario issues across eras is simply more AI units. Apparently CubanAce is working on a AI Su-57 to submit to ED, which would be very helpful. As for PVP, I don't think any good ME would allow F-35's to roam around free in the mission. It'll obviously always be for more creative missions.

I hope his AI asset gets added to DCS. I'm going to have to try to find his page and send him a thank you note. I love it and I am really thankful for the members of the Modding Community who try to submit their work to ED to get added to DCS. 

[MAXsenna]

20 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I hope his AI asset gets added to DCS. I'm going to have to try to find his page and send him a thank you note. I love it and I am really thankful for the members of the Modding Community who try to submit their work to ED to get added to DCS. 

 

 

[cr0nos]

What an absurd question.

The insane levels of narcissism occurring on these forums is astonishing. 

The decision to make a module is not conditional on YOUR individual opinion. If you do not like or want the Jet for any reason - faith in ED's ability to get it up to a playable standard in relation to the real thing or you just don't like fat amy, do not buy it. It has zero impact on you. Absolutely none.

 

The vitriol that comes out of some in this community when anything happens that isn't exactly what they want has to stop.

[zerO_crash]

It looks to me like the news of the F-35 have truly confused many here... It's very obvious that no mods which are aircraft/vehicles/weapons will implemented into DCS. Due to the intricacies and detail required for proper integration (without ruining the authenticity of the simulator) of such objects, it has only been ED or proper 3rd parties who do it. Even then, it takes research and work to find proper documentation and to simulate it well. About the only example of a modder actually providing ED/DCS with anything, was a architect who made basic objects to scale (simple buildings, sandbags, etc...). It's good that some are extatic, but let's be serious. Thanks to the fact that ED is so strict with such additions, we see an authentic simulator with a very organized and equal level of detail (old models are still being updated).

 

As to realism, it's obvious that all new modules make sense! The question is, in what setting. As a simulator, the idea is first and foremost on single scenarios (typical missions) in a singleplayer environment. While that happens to work well with MP, is one thing, but the primary application is SP. Depending on a single scenario, it makes all the sense to simulate different historical conflicts where there is an unequal distribution of technology and power. Concepts such as balance or equal opponents do not exist in this realm. It's about time people take a brake from online servers, and maybe start noticing the actual depth in DCS for what it is. It's far more than spawning in the air for a dogfight, creating opposing coalitions with the same aircraft or accepting "players" taking off from taxi ways. Red-side will always be at a disadvantage due to restrictive laws on that side of the earth. There is nothing like it in the west, not even close. That's why, bitching about Su-57s or whatnot is simply pointless. With that said, we already have what Americans consider to be closest to their 5th generation fighters, specifically the F-22. While it's not as stealthy, it is faster, flies higher, has a more powerful radar (and longer ranged), has longer ranged missiles and a datalink which is above all. Make a mission with MiG-31s, and those F-22s or -35s aren't as difficult as you thought. 

 

It's also very naive to discuss a module, which simply hasn't been shown beyond a 15-second trailer snippet. While F-35 is modern, we cannot forget that it's also one of the few aircraft which you can jump into the simulators of (when shown to the public), and have a go at it. Afterall, as I stated elsewhere, while new to the public, the aircraft has taken off more than 25 years ago, and has been in a low-rate production since then. Certain basic things are known about it, certain more in-depth things as well. We actually know very little about what systems are classified. One can only presume many of those systems being off-board systems. That, meaning maintenance terminals, technical appliances and practices, knowledge of the software programming, +++. Much of that part, is something that in principle, is not simulated in DCS. Bearing this in mind, take it easy, breathe, and I'm sure with a bit of transparency, ED will shows us what they got on it. So far, beyond a toxic Reddit community making stuff up, there are few places where ED hasn't delivered. Where they haven't, it's typically a factor of time and still in production.

Edited January 19 by zerO_crash

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

 

 

thanks I just sent him and ED a thank you note I'm stoked

[VIKBELL]

I think of the younger generation this is their F-14 Tomcat.    I will buy it,   however at I found that I had hard managing the system of the Hornet.   I have the F-15E strike eagle but not going to learn to use at all.  This will be same case for the F-35A..   However ED I understand why they are doing this...

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

It looks to me like the news of the F-35 have truly confused many here... It's very obvious that no mods which are aircraft/vehicles/weapons will implemented into DCS. Due to the intricacies and detail required for proper integration (without ruining the authenticity of the simulator) of such objects, it has only been ED or proper 3rd parties who do it. Even then, it takes research and work to find proper documentation and to simulate it well. About the only example of a modder actually providing ED/DCS with anything, was a architect who made basic objects to scale (simple buildings, sandbags, etc...). It's good that some are extatic, but let's be serious. Thanks to the fact that ED is so strict with such additions, we see an authentic simulator with a very organized and equal level of detail (old models are still being updated).

 

@NineLine has stated that in the past if you have a mod that you think could be implemented in DCS all you have to do is contact them and they will have a look at it. I know there have been at least two modders I can name off the top of my head who have become third-party developers, for example, the Airplan simulation company who are making the C-130 module as well as IFE who made the MB-339.  The C-130 is not going to be identical to the mod as a lot will be added to it, but it doesn't change the fact it happened. 

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

As to realism, it's obvious that all new modules make sense! The question is, in what setting. As a simulator, the idea is first and foremost on single scenarios (typical missions) in a singleplayer environment. While that happens to work well with MP, is one thing, but the primary application is SP. Depending on a single scenario, it makes all the sense to simulate different historical conflicts where there is an unequal distribution of technology and power. Concepts such as balance or equal opponents do not exist in this realm. It's about time people take a brake from online servers, and maybe start noticing the actual depth in DCS for what it is. It's far more than spawning in the air for a dogfight, creating opposing coalitions with the same aircraft or accepting "players" taking off from taxi ways. Red-side will always be at a disadvantage due to restrictive laws on that side of the earth. There is nothing like it in the west, not even close. That's why, bitching about Su-57s or whatnot is simply pointless. With that said, we already have what Americans consider to be closest to their 5th generation fighters, specifically the F-22. While it's not as stealthy, it is faster, flies higher, has a more powerful radar (and longer ranged), has longer ranged missiles and a datalink which is above all. Make a mission with MiG-31s, and those F-22s or -35s aren't as difficult as you thought. 

 

Ballance is up to the mission designer, as I stated earlier it is a mistake to assume that some mod will never make it into DCS. The only time you should make that assumption would be if the developers said they had no intention of porting it into DCS or the mod is highly unrealistic. Though knowing DCS's history of seasonal easter eggs and April Fools Day jokes they might be game to add it as a joke. 

 

 

[ThePops]

I don't see why it should matter to anyone or anything if "we" support the F-35 or not. The decision is made, and I'm sure that 1/2 million new players support this decision by coming to DCS for the F-35 alone. Not supporting it is very simple though: don't purchase it.

The graph up there speaks for itself anyway. "We" do indeed support it.

I have always felt that DCS had one single huge problem. Making new modules takes way too long. How long since the F4U was first announced? 9 years? 10 years? How many other modules have been announced at some point, only to whiter away? The vapor ware factor is very high indeed in DCS. I don't think fidelity has anything to do with it. A single person is literally able to build a real F4U with his own hands faster than what is done in DCS. The P-51 prototype was created from nothing in 102 days. The P-80 in 143 days. These aren't just arbitrary airplanes. One is the most iconic of every warbird in existence. The other is the first operational jet fighter from the USA. It's very obvious that other factors are at work beside fidelity. I don't know exactly what, but my guess is that reinventing the wheel somehow for every module is what is going on. This is rather weird, because aircraft systems such as hydraulics, electrical systems, fuel systems, avionics, everything that goes under the umbrella called fidelity, is basically the same for every aircraft. Sure there are variations, but the principles are the same. This is why they were able to produce the P-51 prototype in 102 days. There's even a word for it, it's called engineering  

Nothing to do with the F-35 perhaps, but perhaps it has. Maybe, just maybe the F-35 is the first step towards a more generalized approach in creating modules? A more general, top down view, much more efficient, and with no real lack of fidelity. A more engineering approach, which also includes reverse engineering? Lots of guesswork from my part here.

I initially put the F-35 as the least interesting of the new aircraft that are destined (or not) to come in a 1-2 years timeframe. Right now it has jumped to the top. I'm really looking forward to it. There's so much to this aircraft, and so much to discover. Learned earlier today it uses INDI (Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion) in the flight control system. It's super cool IMO.