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

[OldFlyer]

10 hours ago, dcn said:

Do you support ED launching F-35 module?

I’m guessing that a lot of the target audience don’t yet play DCS, let alone have an account on this forum. I’m sure the F-35 is designed to draw a raft of new users to the sim.

[Oceandar]

Be it 30%..40%...60%...realistic I honestly don't really care. I wouldn't know it anyway if it's 100% realistic. Make it believable than it would be enough for me. Bring it on ED and good luck.

[Df555]

3 hours ago, Oceandar said:

Be it 30%..40%...60%...realistic I honestly don't really care. I wouldn't know it anyway if it's 100% realistic. Make it believable than it would be enough for me. Bring it on ED and good luck.

I completely agree with you. And also, the fact that the F-35 will be designed based on the experience and impressions of real pilots, for some reason makes some people laugh. Why? After all, if pilots who actually flew the F-35 and tried it in DСS say that it is quite accurate, wouldn't that be more than enough?

Edited January 19 by Df555

[Furiz]

2 hours ago, Df555 said:

And also, the fact that the F-35 will be designed based on the experience and impressions of real pilots, for some reason makes some people laugh. Why?

Because, for example, eye witness memory in testimonies in court have the least amount of weight because, when they witness a car hitting some person, 7 out of 10 people will fail on the car color.

Memories fade with time and people tend to replace details with some other details.

Remember what they said about Mover's comment on the F-16.

 

But I believe that ED will do a good job on Fat Amy, as they did with previous aircraft.

Edited January 19 by Furiz

[cfrag]

12 hours ago, rajdary said:

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

Actually, that is one of my biggest misgivings. We know it won't. It'll languish in EA forever, receiving some minor tweaks while the next big thing (e.g. Raptor) is readied.

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Ballance is up to the mission designer,

And that is my other big concern. ED suck at creating good content. And content is what Fat Amy needs. Mission creators currently have very little to work with here to create good missions for the F-35 (single-player), and nothing to work with in multiplayer. DCS needs a full-blown update for AI units to give mission designers something to work with: opponents, support, infrastructure, heck even maps. And initially there'll be few servers that would allow the F-35 to fly, simply because it'll introduce so much imbalance. Hopefully that will be in impetus for ED to improve the core. Historically, that is not where ED shine. Here's to hoping that ED upgrade everything to 2010 level so the F-35 can get some good missions. Else, it is going to be a sterile experience indeed. And I want to create good Amy missions. Currently, I don't have anything in DCS to do so.

Edited January 19 by cfrag

[Aapje]

16 hours ago, cfrag said:

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?

My worry is that the F-35 simply worsens the issue that this game already has. Too much focus on individually cool things, but too little concern with what makes a good, coherent game.

[JalilDoran]

If the F-35 comes with core game improvements (AI, EW, RCS) that mean there can be a meaningful simulation of it in its tactical environment, then I think there can be a useful niche between the other sims on the market that focus more on civilian and "arcade" style combat gameplay.  The trouble is that hasn't really been the pattern with previous modules, as far as I have seen.  We get excellence, but excepting graphics, that excellence stops at the boundary of the module and the world.

[Pilum]

Model the F-35? What an idiotic idea.

DCS should stick to releasing aircraft for which they can get hold of enough open source data to build credible models on.

If they make the F-35, that model will have zero credibility because everything about that bird it top classified and for a good reason: It's going to form the backbone of air defense in the West for decades to come.

I'm hoping that this is some silly DCS management and marketing department idea, and that the engineers and other sensible people at DCS will shoot it down ASAP.

DCS credibility hangs in the balance.

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Pilum said:

Model the F-35? What an idiotic idea.

DCS should stick to releasing aircraft for which they can get hold of enough open source data to build credible models on.

If they make the F-35, that model will have zero credibility because everything about that bird it top classified and for a good reason: It's going to form the backbone of air defense in the West for decades to come.

I'm hoping that this is some silly DCS management and marketing department idea, and that the engineers and other sensible people at DCS will shoot it down ASAP.

DCS credibility hangs in the balance.

If you dont like it no problem, I hope you will however try it when ready and then pass a judgment. 

thank you 

20 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

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

Yes we do know what many people want, and as you can see we have the F-35A in development, I am sure in the future we will meet the other wants of people as we continue to grow DCS. 

thank you 

[Pilum]

33 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

If you dont like it no problem, I hope you will however try it when ready and then pass a judgment. 

thank you 

I can pass judgement right now: I worked for years with the JAS 39 Gripen systems myself. So tell me, are you able to build a credible model of it? I'm sure that that would sell pretty well as well. However, you can't can you? Because the data you would need to do that is still classified.

So tell me, if you can't even make a credible model of the Gripen, how are you going to do one of the F-35?

 

Edited January 19 by Pilum

[Fairey Gannet]

I just don't know, as of now.

When it comes to F-35, that could be a vehicle for many upgrades and improvement in DCS as a whole, and I would suspect it could open the ways to refine some existing technologies and already existing features in more uniform fashion across the modules. 

I don't have a problem with F-35 per se, if I was to point out one, in my personal opinion, it is lacking enviroment of DCS. We have 1950's 1st gen jets, but almost no Korea-era assets and terrain. We have GCI-based interceptors like MiG-21 or 29, but no GCI, except rudimentary AWACS callouts. Radar and IFF modelling varies from module to module. Tu-95 still flies in the 90's era of Flanker 2.5, every interception is like travelling through history of flight sims. 

That also regards that infamous "Redfor disbalance" issue. There will rarely be balance in plane-to-plane comparison (like Sabre vs MiG-15). F-15 was flown the same year as MiG-21bis, 1972, enough said. Most of Red jets should operate in combination with GBAD net and GCI guidance, pretty rigid structure, compared to flexibility western designs started to emphasise on in later Cold War era. Again, enviromental, mission building issue, in my eyes, rather than directly related to specific module. I think dynamic campaign could solve some of those problems, bringing more tools to the table.

I know fixes like that don't pay bills, new modules do, and if somebody is going to flesh out background for modules, they might feel an urge to eat and pay their rent. F-35 will be popular, and I hope income it will generate will help to develop other issues. Having said that, I see how F-35 can be surprising and controversial choice, and why questions will be raised in its role in the sim, as we know it today.

Edited January 19 by Fairey Gannet
Typo... Probably not the only one. ;)

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

And that is my other big concern. ED suck at creating good content. And content is what Fat Amy needs. Mission creators currently have very little to work with here to create good missions for the F-35 (single-player), and nothing to work with in multiplayer. DCS needs a full-blown update for AI units to give mission designers something to work with: opponents, support, infrastructure, heck even maps. And initially there'll be few servers that would allow the F-35 to fly, simply because it'll introduce so much imbalance. Hopefully that will be in impetus for ED to improve the core. Historically, that is not where ED shine. Here's to hoping that ED upgrade everything to 2010 level so the F-35 can get some good missions. Else, it is going to be a sterile experience indeed. And I want to create good Amy missions. Currently, I don't have anything in DCS to do so.

I agree that DCS needs more modern AI assets, so I hope to see Cuban Ace's Su-57 in DCS at least as an AI asset. It is going to be a lot harder to balance PVP with the F-35. I'd also toss in that we also nee more Assets over all though

Edited January 19 by upyr1

[Creampie]

14 hours 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.

Sure, This game is built completely on the a PvE mindset. I am using PVP as an example, as it does represent a fair amount of people.

PVE represents the majority of DCS, So naturally they would structure that first and foremost. 

But basing the justifcation around information is quite foolish, A prime example is this F35, They have sheer speculation.

Sure, there are FC3 red aircraft, but thats all there ever has been. Look at the FF 9.12 that is coming, It is nothing different besides a clicky cockpit, fighting things it has no parity with. Soon to be fighting EF & F35s, It doesn't make sense.

There is plenty of information on aircraft like the Su-30MKK (completely declassified), J-10A, Mi28nm & a slew of other eastern block aircraft, saying it is based off of information is just incredibly false.

I like many other do not care they are making some module that will be a gimmick, I do however care & ED should too, they are just missing such a large mark with red aircraft.

 

Deka has a Su30MKK, They've been working on it since like 2020 or something. Let them release it. 

 

 

[upyr1]

31 minutes ago, JalilDoran said:

If the F-35 comes with core game improvements (AI, EW, RCS) that mean there can be a meaningful simulation of it in its tactical environment, then I think there can be a useful niche between the other sims on the market that focus more on civilian and "arcade" style combat gameplay.  The trouble is that hasn't really been the pattern with previous modules, as far as I have seen.  We get excellence, but excepting graphics, that excellence stops at the boundary of the module and the world.

No matter what modules are coming out these things need to be improved. I expect that EW and RCS would be the most difficult due to the lack of information however I still think something can be worked up. 

[JalilDoran]

12 minutes ago, Fairey Gannet said:

That also regards that infamous "Redfor disbalance" issue. There will rarely be balance in plane-to-plane comparison (like Sabre vs MiG-15). F-15 was flown the same year as MiG-21bis, 1972, enough said. Most of Red jets should operate in combination with GBAD net and GCI guidance, pretty rigid structure, compared to flexibility western designs started to emphasise on in later Cold War era. Again, enviromental, mission building issue, in my eyes, rather than directly related to specific module. I think dynamic campaign could solve some of those problems, bringing more tools to the table.

 

Exactly.  The realistic peer adversary to the F-35 isn't a Redfor jet anyway, it's an IADS plus 3rd and 4th gen jets in somewhere like Iran.  There is no current way to truly simulate that in DCS without rigging up a number mods for the IADS, ELINT and modern redfor SAMS, and even then the RCS and EW modelling would probably leave you with a fairly meaningless contest.

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

so I hope to see Cuban Ace's Su-57 in DCS at least as an AI asset

This is unlikely to happen, while we are happy to consider community work we have to be very careful about what assets we take on. 

thank you 

1 hour ago, Pilum said:

I can pass judgement right now: I worked for years with the JAS 39 Gripen systems myself. So tell me, are you able to build a credible model of it? I'm sure that that would sell pretty well as well. However, you can't can you? Because the data you would need to do that is still classified.

So tell me, if you can't even make a credible model of the Gripen, how are you going to do one of the F-35?

 

I understand and that is your opinion, I wish you all the best even if the F-35A isn't something you want. As for other aircraft in DCS, it just depends on the public data available, consideration for local and international laws, while having the will and resources to take on a project. I am sure over time we will see many great aircraft come to DCS.

We know we have enough public data to bring the F-35A to DCS and do it justice for a entertainment product. 

thank you  

[Pilotasso]

I support the development of the F-35 module. Back in the 90's, in the golden age of SIM's (wish that chapter of my life could come back) we got certainly a huge variety of titles of different quality standards and I flew most fo them. We Had highly praised F-22's (TAW), F-19 & F-117 (microprose) and the EF (DID), and nobody complained after acknoweleging that some aircrafts were not real or flying yet, or that most of the systems were classified (still are for old aircraft in this SIM). Im all in for more options in DCS, as if each module was a different sim. If you dont want it dont buy it. For those who play mostly on MP, I remind you we have had weapon and aircraft limitations set in place by different servers. If the F-35 upsets the balance, then you most likely you wont see it much online anyway.

Edited January 19 by Pilotasso

[mcfleck]

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the F35 announcement. On one hand, sure I love modern aircraft (planes, choppers, all of them) on the other hand I enjoy at least some level of credibility.
All requests in the past about other aircraft like newer red planes, the KA 52, the super Hornet were dismissed with: There isn't enough public information available for these aircraft, as they are still in active service and we don't want to guess.
So is what we see here a general change of company policy regarding new projects?

At this point I would be willing to bet, that it would be way easier to get an F18E or a Growler, or ANY other western plane into the game than the F35 guesswork.

Why not opening something like Flaming Cliffs 4/5 (now that MAC is probably dead) and bring a bunch of planes with simplistic avionics, but a good flight model? You could pump those out rather quickly and bring in all the jets you don't have the classified information for.
Like an SU57, SU35, J20, F22, F35, Raffaele, Gripen release for flaming cliffs? Booom top seller
Could all be done by reverse engineering pictures, getting the aerodynamics right and don't care about the highly classified systems.

[Pilum]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

I understand and that is your opinion, I wish you all the best even if the F-35A isn't something you want. As for other aircraft in DCS, it just depends on the public data available, consideration for local and international laws, while having the will and resources to take on a project. I am sure over time we will see many great aircraft come to DCS.

We know we have enough public data to bring the F-35A to DCS and do it justice for a entertainment product. 

thank you  

I think you misunderstand me: I'm not against the F-35 as such and it would certainly be a module I would be interested in in the future when there is enough open source data available to do it justice.

However, basically everything of importance about the F-35 is still classified, and I don't think you will be able to get enough data to render it close enough to its IRL counterpart to made a module worthy of the designation simulator yet. But a module that looks externally like the F-35 and like you say has entertainment value for some is certainly within reach.

But that would be a product more suitable for a game studio, and not a company that wants to retain its reputation of producing high fidelity simulation products.

[Fairey Gannet]

1 hour ago, Pilotasso said:

I support the development of the F-35 module. Back in the 90's, in the golden age of SIM's (wish that chapter of my life could come back) we got certainly a huge variety of titles of different quality standards and I flew most fo them. We Had highly praised F-22's (TAW), F-19 & F-117 (microprose) and the EF (DID), and nobody complained after acknoweleging that some aircrafts were not real or flying yet, or that most of the systems were classified (still are for old aircraft in this SIM). Im all in for more options in DCS, as if each module was a different sim. If you dont want it dont buy it. For those who play mostly on MP, I remind you we have had weapon and aircraft limitations set in place by different servers. If the F-35 upsets the balance, then you most likely you wont see it much online anyway.

I will definetly have a nice throwback to my time in JSF and TAW.

[Exorcet]

I think people are making too big a deal over this. The nature of DCS is that any module can be excluded. The F-35 may as well not exist if you don't want it to. It's existence is also independent of the quality of other modules. Just because it exists doesn't mean that standards for DCS as a whole has been lowered. Though the F-35 itself exists in part because the US wanted an export friendly, less secretive airframe than other stealth aircraft. So the fact that it can be simulated isn't that unbelievable.

[HWasp]

2 hours ago, JalilDoran said:

Exactly.  The realistic peer adversary to the F-35 isn't a Redfor jet anyway, it's an IADS plus 3rd and 4th gen jets in somewhere like Iran.  There is no current way to truly simulate that in DCS without rigging up a number mods for the IADS, ELINT and modern redfor SAMS, and even then the RCS and EW modelling would probably leave you with a fairly meaningless contest.

I don't know why so many people are interested in replaying/playing US vs 3rd world one sided conflicts. Yes, those are the ones that happened in the past and are the most likely in the near future, but still, what is the purpose of it? Roleplaying? That's ok once or twice, but it will get old for me quickly.

I have no intention to fly against 4th gens in a 5th gen, or to do "realistic" missions against some old SAMs. I need an interesting environment for this, like J-20s and latest chinese ADs for example, but those cannot be realistically recreated either, because there is simply not enough info out there obviously.

The question is then, why would I learn to operate an aircraft in the sim just for the sake of learning, when I know, that it will not be anywhere near as accurate as the F-4 for example, which was created based on tons of accurate docs and SME info (without all the secrecy).

My point is, if ED wants to go 5th gen and modern warfare, then just do it separately from the rest. Create a new product line, that is not advertised as full fidelity, and then go ahead and create the proper environment as well with interesting adversaries.

I would honestly be interested to fly an "expert level educated guess" of a J-20 or Su-57, knowing very well that it's just a game at that point, but at least it's interesting.

[upyr1]

8 minutes ago, Creampie said:

Sure, This game is built completely on the a PvE mindset. I am using PVP as an example, as it does represent a fair amount of people.

PVE represents the majority of DCS, So naturally they would structure that first and foremost. 

But basing the justifcation around information is quite foolish, A prime example is this F35, They have sheer speculation.

Sure, there are FC3 red aircraft, but thats all there ever has been. Look at the FF 9.12 that is coming, It is nothing different besides a clicky cockpit, fighting things it has no parity with. Soon to be fighting EF & F35s, It doesn't make sense.

There is plenty of information on aircraft like the Su-30MKK (completely declassified), J-10A, Mi28nm & a slew of other eastern block aircraft, saying it is based off of information is just incredibly false.

I like many other do not care they are making some module that will be a gimmick, I do however care & ED should too, they are just missing such a large mark with red aircraft.

 

Deka has a Su30MKK, They've been working on it since like 2020 or something. Let them release it. 

 

 

The Su-30 one of many modules I'd love to get more information about. I would love to see what people can do with the open source material about modern RedFor. While I do want better mod support I also would rather see an official module over a mod any day. 

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

This is unlikely to happen, while we are happy to consider community work we have to be very careful about what assets we take on. 

thank you 

that's a bummer 

[nessuno0505]

23 ore fa, Df555 ha scritto:

We'll die of old age before we get a 100% realistic F-35 simulator. 

Yes, we will die before we get a f-35 as close to real as the a-10c. But there are a lot of interesting aircrafts that could be simulated other than the f-35. And an f-35 drains resources and development time to other new modules. ED will do it the same, but if I could vote, I'd say no.

Edited January 19 by nessuno0505

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

They can get barely close to 20% realistic, that's the maximum you can expect.

Yes, we will die before we get a f-35 as close to real as the a-10c. But there are a lot of interesting aircrafts that could be simulated other than the f-35. And a suboptimal f-35 drains resources and development time to those modules. ED will do it the same, but if I could vote, I'd say no.

you are welcome to your opinion but please dont be insulting, plucking percentages out of thin air isnt good.