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

[Df555]

7 hours ago, Furiz said:

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.

Yes, opinions may differ from person to person. For this reason, I am sure ED has the opportunity to invite several real pilots to solve the problem. However, as I wrote earlier, if F-35 pilots find the module accurate enough, then we will certainly not be able to find any differences. In addition, let's not forget that DСS is a game, not a military training simulator.

27 minutes ago, Pilum said:

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.

And when will that happen? In 30 years? No, thanks. But you can wait if you want. And the opinions of real pilots will be more valuable than open source data when the module appears.

[upyr1]

18 minutes ago, HWasp said:

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.

This is why I didn't like the fact MAC is dead. 

[MAXsenna]

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. 

That's sad. Was a little too good to be true anyway. 

I really wish we could have better support with mods through a common repository and an official mod manager. Ona can hope, right?

[Df555]

6 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

 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.

Changing the characteristics of released modules is not such a difficult task and requires less human resources. Developing new modules is certainly a more important task. In addition, with the development of new modules, parallel tasks are usually solved, such as more accurate modeling of the RСS and radar systems, which should be useful both for the F-35 and for the game as a whole.

[MTM]

IMHO, a player controlled F-35 in DCS enhances realism. I know many will spit out their coffee at such a controversial statement, but it’s nonetheless true. Why? Because, classified or not, the F-35 is in fact out there, in vast numbers, and it has carried out combat missions. If ED was adding Clint Eastwood’s Firefox, we would all agree that is absurd. But the F-35 is not fiction. It’s out there and adding it to DCS brings DCS closer to the real world. And it opens up an aspect of aerial warfare that we haven’t gotten to explore in DCS before. These are positive developments and if done correctly they only add to realism. 

[MAXsenna]

39 minutes ago, HWasp said:

I don't know why so many people are interested in replaying/playing US vs 3rd world one sided conflicts.

Reality?  

41 minutes ago, HWasp said:

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.

Not the worst idea. I've seen other have mentioned it as well. 

[nessuno0505]

2 ore fa, Pilotasso ha scritto:

as if each module was a different sim.

If you consider DCS that way, also the f-35 can have its role.

But if you want to be honest with your customers, you should clearly state what modules are procedural simulators 90% close to the real thing, and what modules are just entertainment products based on educated guess.

That's because people like dcs because it teaches you something while entertaining you. If you do a module based on educated guess, it does not teach you anything. It just entertains. This can be enough and I'm not against it on principle, but people should know.

[MAXsenna]

2 hours ago, Pilotasso said:

We Had highly praised F-22's (TAW),

Minor correction. EF2000, F-22 ADF and TAW were all made by DID.

 

2 hours 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)

I feel I'm still there. Was a long break though.

 

2 hours ago, Pilotasso said:

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.

I do agree, while the goalposts have somewhat changed. For the better IMHO.  

[Viking 1-1]

I'm looking forward to this and can't wait!

And I guarantee you: This will be the best selling module ED has ever made.

[Exorcet]

4 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

If you do a module based on educated guess, it does not teach you anything. It just entertains.

I don't think the US military using US jets to stand in for Soviet jets in training exercises was entertainment.

Realism isn't binary yes/no. Sure you can argue that the DCS F-35 is going to be missing things, but that doesn't mean it's completely removed from reality. I can't tell you what the DCS F-35 will ultimately be, but if you understand physics and engineering you can do more than make a random guess at how to simulate it.

[nessuno0505]

34 minuti fa, BIGNEWY ha scritto:

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

I don't think I insulted anyone: users who have had to do with the f-35 project in reality have estimated even lower percentages right here, on this forum. However, percentage aside, the basic question to be discussed remains: do users like modules based on data and documentation less accurate than we have had so far? I quote my answer:

15 minuti fa, nessuno0505 ha scritto:

People like dcs because it teaches you something while entertaining you. If you do a module based on educated guess, it does not teach you anything. It just entertains. This can be enough and I'm not against it on principle, but people should know.

Edited January 19 by nessuno0505

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, mcfleck said:

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.

I believe now it's fair to say that it was somewhat of a deflection, as they now have stated that the SH can be done, and will come when the C is done. Like they have said the Su-27 can be done, but the team is busy with the MiG-29. 

[nessuno0505]

38 minuti fa, Df555 ha scritto:

Changing the characteristics of released modules is not such a difficult task and requires less human resources. Developing new modules is certainly a more important task.

I'm not against new modules, they are welcome! And I'm very excited about the f-15c. I have some perplexity about the f-35 as a new module.

22 minuti fa, Exorcet ha scritto:

Realism isn't binary yes/no. Sure you can argue that the DCS F-35 is going to be missing things, but that doesn't mean it's completely removed from reality.

The issue is that noone can know. And the few people who know, for sure don't say on a game forum, if they don't want to be fired at best or court-martialed at worst. There's no way for the customers to know how accurate can be a f-35 simulator, since the majority of data are restricted.

Edited January 19 by nessuno0505

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

I don't think I insulted anyone: users who have had to do with the f-35 project in reality have estimated even lower percentages right here, on this forum. However, percentage aside, the basic question to be discussed remains: do users like modules based on data and documentation less accurate than we have had so far?

read your comment again but put yourself in our position. I think you will see what I mean. 

thank you 

[nessuno0505]

8 minuti fa, BIGNEWY ha scritto:

read your comment again but put yourself in our position. I think you will see what I mean. 

thank you 

I still don't understand, but I sincerely apologize. And I edited the post.

[Pilum]

2 hours ago, Df555 said:

Yes, opinions may differ from person to person. For this reason, I am sure ED has the opportunity to invite several real pilots to solve the problem. However, as I wrote earlier, if F-35 pilots find the module accurate enough, then we will certainly not be able to find any differences. In addition, let's not forget that DСS is a game, not a military training simulator.

And when will that happen? In 30 years? No, thanks. But you can wait if you want. And the opinions of real pilots will be more valuable than open source data when the module appears.

A real F-35 pilot will say nothing. He can't. Not unless he wants to go to prison.

I'm not from the US, but I'm sure everyone with access to classified F-35 data has signed an NDA.

In addition, it would not only be treasonous by law to talk about the F-35's performance, but on a moral level as well, because even if you left the service yourself, why would you divulge information about system capabilities of in-service aircraft that could potentially kill your former wingman?

I worked for years on the EW system on the JAS 39 Gripen. I can tell you that the EW/radar modeling in DCS is very simplistic. I could come up with a big list with what is OK and what is NOK in DCS regarding ECM etc. I'm not a pilot but an engineer by profession, but just like any F-35 pilot worth his salt I keep my trap shut.

Do you really think anyone who has flown an F-35 will sit down with DCS developers and say, "Yeah, well you know in the F-35, contacts don't show up at X km on the RWR, we can see them at Y Km. And on the display, we can see the name of the Su-35 pilot's girlfriend and what he had for breakfast".

No, DCS should stick to modeling aircraft that are no longer in service. Makes it easier for everyone involved.

 

Edited January 19 by Pilum

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, Pilum said:

A real F-35 will say nothing. He can't. Not unless he wants to go to prison.

I'm not from the US, but I'm sure everyone with access to classified F-35 data has signed an NDA.

In addition, it would not only be treasonous by law to talk about the F-35's performance, but on a moral level, because even if you left the service yourself, why would you divulge information about system capabilities of in-service aircraft that could potentially kill your former wingman?

I worked for years on the EW system on the JAS 39 Gripen. I can tell you that the EW/radar modeling in DCS is very simplistic. I could come up with a big list with what is OK and what is NOK in DCS regarding ECM etc. I'm not a pilot but an engineer by profession, but just like any F-35 pilot worth his salt I keep my trap shut.

Do you really think anyone who has flown an F-35 will sit down with DCS developers and say, "Yeah, well you know in the F-35, contacts don't show up at X km on the RWR, we can see them at Y Km. And on the display, we can see the name of the Su-35 pilot's girlfriend and what he had for breakfast".

No, DCS should stick to modeling aircraft that are no longer in service. Makes it easier for everyone involved.

Please don't ignore what we have written in our FAQ, we make it clear where we are getting information from, we will only be using public information.

We are going to be making the best F-35A we can for DCS, you can decide if it matches your expectation's of what a DCS aircraft is when it is complete and you get to try it. 

Lets not go around in circles in these threads, you have given your thoughts already and we have replied, the proof will be in the pudding when we are ready to release.

thank you 

13 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

I still don't understand, but I sincerely apologize. And I edited the post.

No problem and thank you. Just remember that there are real people behind our work and we are very proud of what we have accomplished in DCS.

[HWasp]

18 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I don't think the US military using US jets to stand in for Soviet jets in training exercises was entertainment.

Realism isn't binary yes/no. Sure you can argue that the DCS F-35 is going to be missing things, but that doesn't mean it's completely removed from reality. I can't tell you what the DCS F-35 will ultimately be, but if you understand physics and engineering you can do more than make a random guess at how to simulate it.

The US had a lot of accurate information on Soviet jets (CIA>ED imo  ) so I don't think this is a good point. They also acquired Soviet jets to test, when they could.

[Df555]

26 minutes ago, Pilum said:

A real F-35 will say nothing. He can't. Not unless he wants to go to prison.

I'm not from the US, but I'm sure everyone with access to classified F-35 data has signed an NDA.

In addition, it would not only be treasonous by law to talk about the F-35's performance, but on a moral level, because even if you left the service yourself, why would you divulge information about system capabilities of in-service aircraft that could potentially kill your former wingman?

I worked for years on the EW system on the JAS 39 Gripen. I can tell you that the EW/radar modeling in DCS is very simplistic. I could come up with a big list with what is OK and what is NOK in DCS regarding ECM etc. I'm not a pilot but an engineer by profession, but just like any F-35 pilot worth his salt I keep my trap shut.

Do you really think anyone who has flown an F-35 will sit down with DCS developers and say, "Yeah, well you know in the F-35, contacts don't show up at X km on the RWR, we can see them at Y Km. And on the display, we can see the name of the Su-35 pilot's girlfriend and what he had for breakfast".

No, DCS should stick to modeling aircraft that are no longer in service. Makes it easier for everyone involved.

Nobody talked about disclosing exact data and especially documents, only about personal opinion, feelings. F-35 is used not only in US. And you don't need to be an engineer to understand that many systems in DСS are simplified. I am forced to once again pay attention to my message above "DСS is a game, not a military training simulator". I think that the problem is not in the F-35, but in your inflated requirements.

By the way, disclosure and leakage of secret data is not something unbelievable. If it makes you feel better, just think that the right people have access to it. No one will tell you the truth anyway.

Edited January 19 by Df555

[Pilum]

1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please don't ignore what we have written in our FAQ, we make it clear where we are getting information from, we will only be using public information.

We are going to be making the best F-35A we can for DCS, you can decide if it matches your expectation's of what a DCS aircraft is when it is complete and you get to try it. 

Lets not go around in circles in these threads, you have given your thoughts already and we have replied, the proof will be in the pudding when we are ready to release.

thank you 

My answer was not directed at you or anyone else in DCS. I was simply quoting and answering a post which I think gives the wrong impression that you (DCS) will be able to get reliable information from pilot's who have flown the F-35 that's all. And regarding going in circles, well I get that you think that we should wait and see the results and that I can then chose to get the module or not. You said so before.

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

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 hope this happens to some degree with every new module. I know that I have advocated for Naval modules to act as a vehicle to upgrade how ships are modeled 

[Df555]

17 minutes ago, Pilum said:

My answer was not directed at you or anyone else in DCS. I was simply quoting and answering a post which I think gives the wrong impression that you (DCS) will be able to get reliable information from pilot's who have flown the F-35 that's all. And regarding going in circles, well I get that you think that we should wait and see the results and that I can then chose to get the module or not. You said so before.

Since you initially addressed me, I will answer. Real pilots (or former pilots) not only can, but also take direct part in the development of some modules.

[PLAAF]

I don't get it. Shouldn't ED have more data on older jets like the F-22 and F-117 to produce a true FF module? Why not go after those instead?

Please don't tell me DCS is going to turn into another warthunder. 

[Otto pallen]

I don't have time to read all these answers, for me ED was the one that was closest to reality in the flight physics and weapon systems (as far as possible) of the modules in the DCS world, we argued about how close to reality the flight envelopes of the various Hornets or Chinooks were, we criticized the "poetic licenses" of the FC3 modules because they were not very realistic and then, with all due respect, we welcome a module that will be pure fantasy, since everything we will have to use on DCS will have to be invented from scratch unless ED wants to violate various military secrets (and I don't think it has the intention of doing so). I repeat, the weapon systems, radars, sensors of this module would all be speculations based on fantasy so in my opinion using it would "ruin" that adherence to reality, however filtered by limits, wanted or not which is the reason why I prefer DCS to World of Warcraft

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, OldFlyer said:

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.

I hope they succeed in doing that.  As long as ED believes there is enough data to produce a decent module without changing their standards, I don't care what module. If I am interested in a module I will buy it if not I won't.  I'll confess I plan to buy the F-35.  

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

I believe now it's fair to say that it was somewhat of a deflection, as they now have stated that the SH can be done, and will come when the C is done. Like they have said the Su-27 can be done, but the team is busy with the MiG-29. 

I'm happy about that