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

[Pilum]

46 minutes ago, Df555 said:

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.

Well, I would hate to see DCS modules being done based on "feelings" and no, the F-35 pilots can't share "opinions" either, because that would tell whoever is doing the modeling if they are close or not, i.e. divulge sensitive information about system capabilities.

Not for me to answer, but I'm not sure I agree with your take that "DСS is a game, not a military training simulator" because I believe DCS wants to be referred to as a simulator (and rightly so) and not be placed in the same category as games like Warthunder.

And "secret" data cannot be used either, even if the "right" people doing the modeling have it. Would be devastating for any company to use leaked classified military documents. Read what BIGNEWY wrote above: They will only be using open sources to do the F-35 modeling.

1 minute ago, Df555 said:

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.

Sure they do. But which of those DCS aircraft are state-of-the-art like the F-35, and which will be used by NATO for decades to come?

[MAXsenna]

26 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I'm happy about that

Who wouldn't be!  

Oh, wait! The half glass empty crowd...  

[Grodin]

Sure as long as that means "Not correct for the modeled year" is no longer a valid argument for anything example F16 not getting APKWS etc since we are now going with the "It _could_ work like this" level of simulation.

Buuuut we all know thats not the case and we will buy the F35 anyway lol.

And no i don't have anything against trying to simulate something classified by estimating how it could work but i wish they would do the same for other planes too and give us some cool toys even if it was not issued that exact specific year.

Edited January 19 by Grodin

[MAXsenna]

43 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

F-22

Bombs, missing tools, the next step perhaps? Who knows, we'll see in the future. 

44 minutes ago, PLAAF said:

F-117

Incoming by 3rd party as far as I know. 

[McGherkin]

On a purely selfish level, of course I'm going to buy it. It's going to be the closest thing you can get to flying a real F35, in the same way that flying an F16 in DCS is the closest you can get to that, or the F18, or the Spitfire, or the Apache etc etc etc. That's why we're all here - it's as close as you can get, even if it's not exact. DCS is very good at the systems depth that really makes the difference with the F35 and the DAS information on the HMD is going to be wild in VR, I know it will.

But do I think DCS SHOULD make the F35? Probably not. It's another entry in the 'yeah, they definitely announced this to get the community on side' list, it will cause endless headaches with people arguing that 'Fat Amy is too good and all the noobs are killing everyone' and 'I was in an F35 and I should have absolutely smoked the guy, it's not good enough' and the inevitable Warthunder style leaks that it will bring. I feel like it's giving the community what they want because they want it, not because ED feels they can do it to their usual standard. It degrades the reputation and value of DCS as well by bringing the fidelity down.

We're already seeing people going 'F35 in DCS, where APKWS in Apache/F16 etc' and to be honest they have a point. Yes it might not be in that year of F16 but if anyone cares they can just restrict that weapon in their server anyway so just let us have it, it was on the aircraft at one point.

 

[Df555]

1 hour ago, Pilum said:

Well, I would hate to see DCS modules being done based on "feelings" and no, the F-35 pilots can't share "opinions" either, because that would tell whoever is doing the modeling if they are close or not, i.e. divulge sensitive information about system capabilities.

Not for me to answer, but I'm not sure I agree with your take that "DСS is a game, not a military training simulator" because I believe DCS wants to be referred to as a simulator (and rightly so) and not be placed in the same category as games like Warthunder.

And "secret" data cannot be used either, even if the "right" people doing the modeling have it. Would be devastating for any company to use leaked classified military documents. Read what BIGNEWY wrote above: They will only be using open sources to do the F-35 modeling.

You are very naive. Of course they wrote that they would use data only from open sources. Because even if it were not so, they would not tell you.

Nothing prevents pilots from sharing data without disclosing classified information. The pilot is not required to know and may not know many technical data about his aircraft and its equipment. But his general impressions of piloting can be very useful. In the end, everyone is trying to achieve that the aircraft "feels" close to the real one, and does not correspond to it in absolute precision in every parameter.

 

1 hour ago, Pilum said:

 

Sure they do. But which of those DCS aircraft are state-of-the-art like the F-35, and which will be used by NATO for decades to come?

Eurofighter. Don't thank me. Oh and before you write that it's not that modern etc. It doesn't matter. It's still a modern aircraft that will be in service.

Edited January 19 by Df555

[Raisuli]

For me this is easy

1. The F-35 hasn't been released, so the angst is over guess work about what the module might be, not what it is.

2. Given the popularity of third party mods for everything from the Wright Flyer to the Death Star, with the mid-point skewed heavily toward Su-57s and TIE fighters, the F-35 makes perfect sense

3. As a single player I have a use case for the F-35 in SEAD/Opening engagements in my (personal) missions.

Generally aircraft don't excite me; I have more than enough to last my lifetime and prefer maps and environmental add-ons, but I'm very curious what ED comes up with.  Until I see release notes I'm not going to waste time with wild imaginings.

As always, just my opinion, which is as useful as all the guess work about what the F-35 will bring us.  Asymptotic to none.

[CrashMcGhee]

There's been a very high degree of interest in such a project, but sentiment has been the information is not available. They seem certain that they have more information than some other modules that have been approved and implemented, which I highly doubt, but the fact of the matter is there is a major market for it, and they know that. I anticipate it will be pretty limited on the multiplayer side of things, but people are going to buy this even if there's no spots for it on multiplayer servers. The IFE three pack has been a great seller with the microsoft flight sim community for over a decade, and there's a lot of cross-over. I kinda wish I'd watched 2025 and Beyond before having it spoiled by a commentary video that popped on my feed first, because they delivered the announcement well. I'm personally hyped, even if I'm only going to be using it in single player. I'd hope multiplayer servers hold it under a points system so players use it wisely. What I'm particularly interested to see is how it's RCS is calculated. It should be much more visible with external stores, so I'm curious how they're going to model that as current aircraft seem just as detectable with a full combat load as they are in a clean configuration, which isn't entirely accurate either.

[upyr1]

3 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

For me this is easy

1. The F-35 hasn't been released, so the angst is over guess work about what the module might be, not what it is.

Quite true, we don't know when they plan to actually release it or how long it will be in Early access nor do we know all their sources. 

3 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

2. Given the popularity of third party mods for everything from the Wright Flyer to the Death Star, with the mid-point skewed heavily toward Su-57s and TIE fighters, the F-35 makes perfect sense

As I have said in the past- good mod support is important. There are some real aircraft and assets which for some reason isn't in ED (yet) either due to the fact no one has got around to it, or the data is missing. Then of course we also have fantasy modules. I also hope to see more assets of all eras

3 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

3. As a single player I have a use case for the F-35 in SEAD/Opening engagements in my (personal) missions.

Generally aircraft don't excite me; I have more than enough to last my lifetime and prefer maps and environmental add-ons, but I'm very curious what ED comes up with.  Until I see release notes I'm not going to waste time with wild imaginings.

As always, just my opinion, which is as useful as all the guess work about what the F-35 will bring us.  Asymptotic to none.

 

[Shaman]

I have been flying ED sim since Su-27 Flanker 1.0 demo released by SSI in 1995. Every single iteration of their product. This outcry for them trying their chance with F-35A is just insane. When first Su-27 sim was released aircraft was like a decade in service. When Jane's released their F-15E and F/A-18E, Strike Eagle was like decade in service, the Super Hornet entered service like a year prior. Now when ED releases their F-35A (likely in 2-3 years time), this aircraft will be in service for over a decade. There will be enough information to make it a cool consumer market level study simulation game out of it. If you are hating this or that module announcement for any reason, it only tells what kind of person you are. I personally keep waiting for full fidelity Su-27S, but I am still happy will receive MiG-29A. Some of you are so difficult to satisfy.

[Tom P]

No. But if they have enough evidence to produce the f-35. Then give us red air that can compete with 60 year old western tech. Plenty of airshows and videos of those.

[ThePops]

9 minutes ago, McGherkin said:

It degrades the reputation and value of DCS as well by bringing the fidelity down.

As I have said before. The obvious reason for the F-35 is to get money flowing in the right direction. What we will get for sure is the highest fidelity F-35 that is available in the history of commercial simulators. You cannot argue with that. No one can argue with that. This will sell like hot cakes and bring lots of new people into DCS.

Let's look at the alternative. One alternative that has popped up is the Super Hornet. It will probably also be popular, but nowhere near the F-35. It will not bring new people in, the C already exist. It's safe to say that the (eventual) Super Hornet only is an extra bonus for those already in love with the C, and it will give newcomers a choice. They will chose one or the other, not both unless they are sold as 2 for 1 or something. In reality it's not likely to increase sales by anything that really matters.

How about bringing the fidelity up? I have seen the comments on the re-mastered F-5E. It's the exact same part of the community that whines about paying $10 for vastly improved fidelity, at least in the graphical department, that also whines about not enough fidelity on the F-35. This a very good indication of how the community actually value fidelity. It's not even worth lousy 10 bucks. Never mind the fact the the F-35 doesn't even exist yet. We don't know how it will look or fly like, and no one is forcing anyone to purchase it in a year or two.

To bring the value of DCS up requires channeling resources (money) into the ED. There's no other way. Obviously the F-35 naysayers are not ready to do that. Yet, someone has to channel money into the company. Perhaps another business model will work? Subscription based? perhaps, I don't know, but judging by the re-mastered F-5E, it doesn't look like it's an obvious way forward.

The way it works in DCS as far as I can see, is sales of predominantly F-16, F-18, perhaps the Apache and one or two others in effect subsidizes the entire party. This is not a bad thing, but there are only so many F-16/F-18 geeks. The F-35 is on a different level entirely. Then when ED feels (are 100% sure is what they have said) that they can create an F-35 to a standard they are satisfied with, then from a business perspective it's complete madness not to do it. It's ED that decides what the standard is. It's not a smaller percentage of the community that sets YouTube and forums on fire because they have to pay $10 to upgrade the fidelity of the F-5 to a standard that ED feels it should have.

So, "It degrades the reputation and value of DCS as well by bringing the fidelity down". Sorry, but that is just a bunch of bull. The F-35 will seriously put DCS on the map. I'm sure discussions about the fidelity will continue forever though, but I guess all PR is good PR in this matter. Very annoying, but still   

[zerO_crash]

20 hours ago, upyr1 said:

@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. 

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. 

 

 

Well, that´s precisely my point. I mentioned only one modder who´s work got accepted into vanilla DCS. That, while not having been contracted by ED. All the other models, who eventually wanted to add something to DCS (through the official way), had to seek a contract with ED. In other words, it seems like ED knows itself how much work it takes to create any of the plethora of objects within DCS, thus requiring the individual/team to be on contract to even evaluate their work. For reference here; notice how long the A-4E is in works, with what started out as a mod and a whole team. It still is not a default module in DCS alas that of Su-25T. 

 

20 hours ago, upyr1 said:

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. 

You misunderstood. I stated that balance as a concept, really bears no meaning in a simulator. Even the most primitive wars ever fought, were done with the idea of having a decisive edge over your enemy. The acts of chivalry only really happend on individual-level, not so much in the scope of tactics or strategy. Therefore, whichever modules ED might add, will never be out of scope. It simply puts more demand on mission designers to potentially simulate the conflict well.

 

A simple hypothetical situation: ED releases F-35 today. Well, if you go on a server that distributes modules with regards to their native producers, then it might seem like a unfair situation. However, if you consider how many F-35s are used operationally in a theatre, or the aspect of war price, and that the contender would need a bigger force to justify US sending a bigger number of F-35, then all of a sudden you have a plausible situation. This situation reminds very much of when F-14A released, and people were afraid of the AIM-54A outranging everything. Well, once HB simulated the AIM-54s potential to failiure, you all of a sudden don´t have that problem anymore. Until, however, HB simulated the error probability, one had to limit the available AIM-54s, as they were slightly too unreal in their performance. The F-35 discussion is very much the F-14/AIM-54 all over again.

 

The other relevant question is of course, the one concerning the authenticity of F-35. If there are systems today on the F-16CM Blk. 52 that are ITAR, then it does become hard to believe that F-35 is achievable. This, concerning the fact that F-35 has, supposedly, a much higher reliance on onboard/off-board systems. E.g., while we know that EW (elecontronic warfare) is being worked on, it´s still somewhat hard to comprehend that we can have a F-35 which most definitely is competent in that department, albeit no info to be found on it around. Now, taking the EW away from F-35, or simplifying it, we don´t know how much that alters the capabilities of the F-35.

 

Again, we´ll have to wait and see what ED presents.

Edited January 19 by zerO_crash

[rob10]

2 hours ago, Tom P said:

No. But if they have enough evidence to produce the f-35. Then give us red air that can compete with 60 year old western tech. Plenty of airshows and videos of those.

ED have said many times that in the case of REDFOR it's more an issue of developing what doesn't result in ED staff in jail in Russia than availability of info on them.  Chizh (can't remember exact spelling, sorry) explicitly said this in the last day or two.  They've also alluded to it being a smaller market (which will be tested with the Mig-29) so less profit potential which is also a key consideration when they only release a limited number of modules over a 2 or 3 year development span.

And if you don't believe that, look at the what most people would think of British aircraft (Harrier, Eurofighter) and the fact that it's not British version of them created or in development, and Britain has much less draconian laws in that regard than Russia.

Edited January 19 by rob10

[zerO_crash]

 

@rob10 That is correct. Primarily though, the pressure lies on undefined RF laws which you cannot circumvent, nor do you ever know how much you push them. It´s a feeling thing. It does not get mentioned at all here either, but I would imagine that much of the reason why blues (I´m red) have fancy new toys to play with, is due to Wags having good knowledge with those laws (former employment). I seriously doubt we´d have much of what we got today, if not for people schooled and competent in document handling at higher echelons. Again, ED deserves praise for this!

 

Until we know more, it seems like you can treat ED´s attempt at F-35 to bring essentially a publicly available F-35 simulator into private homes. Conceptually, it isn´t very different from the modules we have today - you would only get access to simulators cleared for public use, not actual military ones (be it F-14 or F-18).

Edited January 20 by zerO_crash

[Dangerzone]

If the F35 paves the way for other classified aircraft to be released in a 'best guess' scenario without needing declassification - such as an AC-130, SU-57, or FA-18E/F ... I'm all for it! 

I was always under the impression classified aircraft weren't going to be an option because this was a simulator and there wasn't going to be any 'guessing' involved, but if there's new rules coming out now that allow 'best guesses from airshow demonstrations' and other limited release information with the rest of the blanks filled in, I'm OK with that.

[JalilDoran]

4 hours ago, Shaman said:

I have been flying ED sim since Su-27 Flanker 1.0 demo released by SSI in 1995. 

I too, had a bad version Flanker on the Atari ST, but the thing is people's expectations for fidelity have increased a bit since 1995, and that isn't the same thing as being cranky.  The comparisons to Microprose F-19 Stealth Fighter (a completely made up Skunkworks plane of course) or the F-22 game from back in the day suggest regression not progress.  It was fine for flight sims in the 90s to be fantasy games because home systems were incapable of simulating anything anyway.

[TempestRiser]

Just do it...

We all know that DCS modules are not 100% equal to their real-life counterparts, classified stuff or not. So why not bring in the F-35A? If someone does not like the plane, go purchase another one and have a good time. I'm happy to have a good time flying with friends on the F-35A. I wish ED success in this endeavor, and I will support the idea.

[rob10]

10 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 It does not get mentioned at all here either, but I would imagine that much of the reason why blues (I´m red) have fancy new toys to play with, is due to Wags having good knowledge with those laws (former employment). I seriously doubt we´d have much of what we got today, if not for people schooled and competent in document handling at higher echelons. Again, ED deserves praise for this!

And since ED many years (decades) ago had someone criminally prosecuted (jailed?) in the U.S. over it, I can almost guarantee that they are pretty freak'en careful about where they tread on that side of things.

[zerO_crash]

23 minutes ago, rob10 said:

And since ED many years (decades) ago had someone criminally prosecuted (jailed?) in the U.S. over it, I can almost guarantee that they are pretty freak'en careful about where they tread on that side of things.

 

Not decades.

 

https://app2top.com/industry/the-developer-of-the-russian-eagle-dynamics-received-a-year-in-prison-in-the-usa-because-of-the-flight-simulator-143631.html#:~:text=The creator of the flight,facto deported back to Russia.

 

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2019/06/26/i-was-a-celebrity-in-jail

 

Well, let me put it this way; if what this simulator touches on wasn´t as important, you´d hardly have FBI and CIA monitor what comes up of documents here. Yes, you read it right. Rule 1.16 is strictly abided by here, otherwise ED (as a company) would land in trouble if they themselves weren´t actively working in this department. That´s how it works.

Edited January 20 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

37 minutes ago, TempestRiser said:

Just do it...

We all know that DCS modules are not 100% equal to their real-life counterparts, classified stuff or not. So why not bring in the F-35A? If someone does not like the plane, go purchase another one and have a good time. I'm happy to have a good time flying with friends on the F-35A. I wish ED success in this endeavor, and I will support the idea.

 

Because as Wags adequately put in the Q&A for 2025 and beyond trailer; the company leans more towards being a simulator, than an impressionary product. ED has established itself in a niche, and that has been the reason it thrives all those years, since the first of us were here. Deviating from reality too much, will lose the sim its main selling point - authenticity. At that point, it´s a crumbling Berlin wall anno 1989. That´s why some of us have been flying one module for years, vs. what other "simulators" have in terms of flyable aircraft. As Nick Grey said it himself - he wanted to make a simulator which actually felt like an aircraft simulator. 

 

People should also take it easy with big statements like "opening doors" and whatnot. Just because F-35 has been heavily criticised, forcing LM and JSF-office to try and win the common public over by introducing public simulators, doesn´t mean that we will get a Su-57 or anything. Read my former post, and you´ll understand why that is impossible. People who don´t really know what is going on, should rather treat this as a one in a hundread. A unicorn, if you wish. Much the like of Ka-50. If it wasn´t made before relations between east and west turned sour, we would absolutely not have it today. Time will show, but again, forget any train of current modern aircraft to come.

Edited January 20 by zerO_crash

[TempestRiser]

13 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

Because as Wags adequately put in the Q&A for 2025 and beyond trailer; the company leans towards simulator more, than impressionary product. ED has established itself in a niche, and that has been the reason it thrives all those years, since the first of us were here. Deviating from reality too much, will lose the sim its main selling point - authenticity. At that point, it´s a crumbling Berling wall anno 1989. 

 

People should also take it easy with big statements like "opening doors" and whatnot. Just because F-35 has been heavily criticised, forcing LM and JSF-office to try and win the common public over by introducing public simulators, doesn´t mean that we will get a Su-57 or anything. Read my former post, and you´ll understand why that is impossible. People who don´t really know what is going on, should rather treat this as a one in a hundread. A unicorn, if you wish. Much the like of Ka-50. If it wasn´t made before relations between east and west turned sour, we would absolutely not have it today. Time will show, but again, forget any train of current modern aircraft to come.

Makes sense

[dcn]

If ED insists on launching F-35 module, I suggest DCS be renamed MAC, then we will all shut up.

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Well, that´s precisely my point. I mentioned only one modder who´s work got accepted into vanilla DCS. That, while not having been contracted by ED. All the other models, who eventually wanted to add something to DCS (through the official way), had to seek a contract with ED. In other words, it seems like ED knows itself how much work it takes to create any of the plethora of objects within DCS, thus requiring the individual/team to be on contract to even evaluate their work. For reference here; notice how long the A-4E is in works, with what started out as a mod and a whole team. It still is not a default module in DCS alas that of Su-25T. 

 

The A-4 team said when they got started they had no intentions of making it official. So that would be a bad example. Though I mentioned a couple modules that got their start as mods.

5 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

You misunderstood. I stated that balance as a concept, really bears no meaning in a simulator. Even the most primitive wars ever fought, were done with the idea of having a decisive edge over your enemy. The acts of chivalry only really happend on individual-level, not so much in the scope of tactics or strategy. Therefore, whichever modules ED might add, will never be out of scope. It simply puts more demand on mission designers to potentially simulate the conflict well.

 

I didn't misunderstand what you stated and the fact real-world military forces want as much of an edge as possible, doesn't change the simple fact that DCS players on PVP servers would like some balance which would be up to the mission designer. That might mean slapping a Su-57 or 75 livery on a F-35 and saying it was flown by the  aggressor squadron  

or you might decide to limit the F-35 to PVE servers and single-player missions. You could also use mods as well. 

 

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, rob10 said:

ED have said many times that in the case of REDFOR it's more an issue of developing what doesn't result in ED staff in jail in Russia than availability of info on them.  Chizh (can't remember exact spelling, sorry) explicitly said this in the last day or two.  They've also alluded to it being a smaller market (which will be tested with the Mig-29) so less profit potential which is also a key consideration when they only release a limited number of modules over a 2 or 3 year development span.

And if you don't believe that, look at the what most people would think of British aircraft (Harrier, Eurofighter) and the fact that it's not British version of them created or in development, and Britain has much less draconian laws in that regard than Russia.

I know various people at ED have stated that someone else would have to do the more modern Redfor. If I remember right the Red Star simulation which is doing the MiG-17 is German I belive the lead developer's dad was a former East German fighter pilot. Then we have a couple fitters in the works and I believe Dekka said something about possibly doing the Su-30 (I expect that might get vetoed by Bejing) Anyway On the MiG-29 all I have to say is that is an instant buy. The fulcrum is cool