Will we get a hybrid of Block2B and Block3F?

[Wizard_03]

6 hours ago, Snappy said:

It will also make it the most boring one. No challenge at all. Push to win button. Is it a highly effective weapon system? yes. Fun? not much if ask me.

Yeah definitely. I hope they include things like optional luneburg lens so we can at least tone the stealth down for some scenarios. But it will be a challenge to make situations that challenge the lightning for sure. Lol 

Also if we get a eurofighter model with a modern IRST system that might have a shot at spotting the F-35 before it crushes everything, and of course F-35 vs F-35 might be interesting. But against anything else in the sim at BVR it's goodnight. Personally I look forward to dogfighting with it. Apparently in the few instances where the F-35 was actually defeated at Red flag most or all occurred in WVR when someone managed to merge with one. You will have the occasional dummy that makes a critical mistake like not flying at the correct angles to maintain stealth or going bonzi at Winchester. 

 

Also flying other aircraft under F-35 threat could be fun and scary with some creative mission building. 

Edited February 22 by Wizard_03

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 2/22/2025 at 10:02 AM, Wizard_03 said:

 

Also flying other aircraft under F-35 threat could be fun and scary with some creative mission building. 

We just turned DCS into a survival horror game.

[Northstar98]

On 1/25/2025 at 6:11 PM, Temetre said:

I imagine the days of "we gonna use the weapons that X variant carried at Y date" are over, if that was ever more than an excuse.

I highly doubt it. Even a scope as narrow as "X variant at Y date, for Z operator" is still too large for ED to finish properly. We've already seen items that are perfectly accurate, even to that narrow scope, be either removed, forgotten about, or not planned for in the first place. Though I don't see any of the people complaining about narrow scopes complaining about that...

The Hornet is easily the worst offender here - MSI, TAMMAC maps, CAS page, Nite Hawk, CEC functionality for the MITL weapons etc.

But this is even the case where classification, research or technical viability is absolutely not a problem in any way shape or form. In fact, some not-planned for features are present on other modules by the same developer (the Apache gets reduced-load ATGMs, the Hind doesn't; the Hip gets PKT door gunners, the Hind doesn't).

Then there's the whole stated goals of the game in the first place, this is supposed to be depicting aircraft accurately - I fail to see the issue when it gets closer to doing exactly that.

 

With that said, I'm kind of of the opinion of Block 3F (at least) or go home. Personally, I'm not interested in pre-IOC aircraft, especially given the overall environment in DCS (which is poorly suited to the F-35 in the first place and having a pre-IOC aircraft would only solidify that sentiment for me).

Edited April 4 by Northstar98
grammar, minor addendum

[Temetre]

Am 24.2.2025 um 11:06 schrieb Northstar98:

I highly doubt it. Even a scope as narrow as "X variant at Y date, for Z operator" is still too large for ED to finish properly. We've already seen items that are perfectly accurate, even to that narrow scope be either removed, forgotten about or not planned for in the first place. Though I don't see any of the people complaining about narrow scopes complaining about that.

Tbh thats why I think it was mostly an excuse. Theres really no reason ED or any other dev could or couldnt put a feature into a plane. A game like DCS has to make compromises and its making them all the time.

Am 24.2.2025 um 11:06 schrieb Northstar98:

With that said, I'm kind of of the opinion of Block 3F (at least) or go home. Personally, I'm not interested in pre-IOC aircraft, especially given the overall environment in DCS (which is poorly suited to the F-35 in the first place).

I suspect that the F35 we get is gonna be a 'frankenplane', not unlike how the Eurofighter might turn out. Combining features of different versions of the aircraft. They probably have to make up a lot of stuff anyway consdering the whole classification thing.

[Northstar98]

9 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Tbh thats why I think it was mostly an excuse. Theres really no reason ED or any other dev could or couldnt put a feature into a plane. A game like DCS has to make compromises and its making them all the time.

Well, I wouldn't say excuse, more defining the scope of their modules. While very narrow, I don't think going beyond it holds much water for ED, given that they have enough trouble as it is completing aircraft wholly within it, let alone going outside it.

But sticking to that defined scope does fit the wider published goals of the game though. And yes, the game is necessarily going to be inaccurate and will make compromises - that's why that wider goal is realism where it's possible. Suffice to say, I don't see how the existence of inaccuracies or compromises mean it should be done away with (especially when the same logic applies the other way around to the converse).

Getting back to the F-35 though, I hope they at least make an attempt to represent an IOC or post IOC aircraft. If that means the aircraft is somewhat of a frankenjet, because that's all they can do, so be it.

[jeventy26]

On 2/22/2025 at 8:32 AM, felixx75 said:

You've written that three times now, but why before June?

This dude needs to answer the June question....  

[treeplante]

This will by far be the most detailed fighter aircraft DCS will probably ever see. The vast array of systems and required sensor fusion to make this feel and appear like a real F-35 is tremendous work and we should all be patient and appreciate the effort ED puts out for us.

Quality over quantity guys. 

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, treeplante сказал:

This will by far be the most detailed fighter aircraft DCS will probably ever see.   

Yeah, right

[felixx75]

6 hours ago, treeplante said:

This will by far be the most detailed fighter aircraft DCS will probably ever see. The vast array of systems and required sensor fusion to make this feel and appear like a real F-35 is tremendous work and we should all be patient and appreciate the effort ED puts out for us.

Quality over quantity guys. 

I dare to doubt that...

[Northstar98]

19 hours ago, treeplante said:

The vast array of systems and required sensor fusion to make this feel and appear like a real F-35 is tremendous work and we should all be patient and appreciate the effort ED puts out for us.

Considering that sensor fusion is still absent on the Hornet (MSI), I somehow doubt it. And has for the most detailed, I'm pretty sure the F-4E will take that place for a long while yet.

Then there's the simple fact that in terms of fidelity, ED are behind third parties and that's for comparitively simpler mechanically scanned radars.

Their ground radar model is the lowest fidelity model present in DCS - it doesn't account for beam geometry or antenna elevation whatsoever (which even leads to cases where radars can see behind themselves), they're magically immune to jamming, they're magically immune to sea clutter, they're magically immune to civil ground traffic, they magically filter out (or otherwise don't detect) aircraft etc.

[treeplante]

On 3/18/2025 at 1:04 AM, TotenDead said:

Yeah, right

Oops.. that came out a bit wrong.. Haha

Either way, point is, give the developers time and don't nag for release dates if you want a fairly good product 

[NineLine]

On 1/19/2025 at 6:09 AM, rocaf2003 said:

Hi,There!As far as I know, the earliest version of F35 that we can get combat capability is Block2B that can launch 120C7,GBU12/31/32 in 2015, and ED is also very interested in Block2B. At the beginning, ED said that he was interested in making Block2B, but I also noticed that the FAQ has questions about F35 weapon capabilities Description of the force: It can use a wider variety of weapons (AIM9X 25mm cannon... Does this mean we will get a Block2B with Block3F weapons capability?Thx for reply!

As we get closer we will share more info on where this one will land, and what variant its closest to. Thanks

[OhNoMyHookBroke]

On 2/24/2025 at 4:06 AM, Northstar98 said:

I highly doubt it. Even a scope as narrow as "X variant at Y date, for Z operator" is still too large for ED to finish properly. We've already seen items that are perfectly accurate, even to that narrow scope, be either removed, forgotten about, or not planned for in the first place. Though I don't see any of the people complaining about narrow scopes complaining about that...

The Hornet is easily the worst offender here - MSI, TAMMAC maps, CAS page, Nite Hawk, CEC functionality for the MITL weapons etc.

But this is even the case where classification, research or technical viability is absolutely not a problem in any way shape or form. In fact, some not-planned for features are present on other modules by the same developer (the Apache gets reduced-load ATGMs, the Hind doesn't; the Hip gets PKT door gunners, the Hind doesn't).

Then there's the whole stated goals of the game in the first place, this is supposed to be depicting aircraft accurately - I fail to see the issue when it gets closer to doing exactly that.

 

With that said, I'm kind of of the opinion of Block 3F (at least) or go home. Personally, I'm not interested in pre-IOC aircraft, especially given the overall environment in DCS (which is poorly suited to the F-35 in the first place and having a pre-IOC aircraft would only solidify that sentiment for me).

This
We've seen it before. What makes us think it'll be different this time?

They've already dragged themselves into an EA pit, and the only way to get out of it is actually focusing on those aircraft and taking a break from trying to rush out the next biggest aircraft. A-10C II is still missing stuff, F-16, F/A-18C, etc.

I can only hope though. 

As for the Block, yep, Block 3F or go home. I too have no interest in a pre-IOC F-35.

[TotenDead]

17 часов назад, OhNoMyHookBroke сказал:

 

As for the Block, yep, Block 3F or go home. I too have no interest in a pre-IOC F-35.

Because it won't be able to Fight 1980s aircraft as easily as the 3F one? 

[OhNoMyHookBroke]

19 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Because it won't be able to Fight 1980s aircraft as easily as the 3F one? 

This is a very big problem, but what do you want me or ED to do about it? "Hi, I'll get a Su-30 with a side of all Russian ED employees being arrested."

My guy, did you even read this thread?

[TotenDead]

7 часов назад, OhNoMyHookBroke сказал:

This is a very big problem, but what do you want me or ED to do about it? "Hi, I'll get a Su-30 with a side of all Russian ED employees being arrested."

My guy, did you even read this thread?

Hm, make a block 1 or something  And call it a day if necessary? It would still be the F-35, the mighty fat gen fighter

[NytHawk]

On 4/29/2025 at 11:38 AM, TotenDead said:

Hm, make a block 1 or something  And call it a day if necessary? It would still be the F-35, the mighty fat gen fighter

Developing such a complex airframe without any weapons systems, datalink, limited to m0.9, 5g and 18α respectively seems like a very wise use of development resources.

Edited yesterday at 12:17 PM by NytHawk

[opps]

Basically what can be said at this stage is ED is developing USAF F-35. Everything else is TBD.

It's hard to understand ED opened F-35A forum in such state. Did you see weapon list in FAQ section cut half or less just after announcement?

How can ED be so confident to making realistic F-35 simulator when you don't know what weapon systems will be needed.

Edited yesterday at 12:30 PM by opps

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, opps said:

Basically what can be said at this stage is ED is developing USAF F-35. Everything else is TBD.

It's hard to understand ED opened F-35A forum in such state. Did you see weapon list in FAQ section cut half or less just after announcement?

How can ED be so confident to making realistic F-35 simulator when you don't know what weapon systems it needs to implement.

The FAQ is there to share the information we have at the moment at this early stage, when we are ready to share more we will, by the time it comes to purchasing you will have all the information you need.
 

thank you 

[OhNoMyHookBroke]

18 hours ago, NytHawk said:

Developing such a complex airframe without any weapons systems, datalink, limited to m0.9, 5g and 18α respectively seems like a very wise use of development resources.

That guy is just an upset REDFOR/Russian, and I say that with all due respect.