A discussion of how much EW content we can get based on publicly available information

[draconus]

12 minutes ago, Pilum said:

And frankly, I don't see how "some guessing" and utilizing "well known (publicly available) principles" will allow the modeling of a highly classified F-35 EW system.

That's your problem. You don't see, because you may have knowledgle about EW but know nothing about believably simulating it in DCS on a bit higher level than it is implemented now. You didn't think they gonna simulate single radar pulses or EM waves going through the virtual sky, did you?

16 minutes ago, Pilum said:

However, the F-35 is a highly classified system that will form the backbone of the West's AF's for a long time to come so it's a completely different ballgame to model the systems on that compared to say a Mig-21 or F-4 for which there is a ton of declassified data to go on.

Yet devs says otherwise (4 posts above) and I take their word for it instead of some random internet guy. That's who you are - you're just the one who's not helping at all, standing by and saying: "Impossible, you can't do it, I know how, but won't tell".

[BIGNEWY]

26 minutes ago, Pilum said:

And frankly, I don't see how "some guessing" and utilizing "well known (publicly available) principles" will allow the modeling of a highly classified F-35 EW system. 

I think you are need to understand that as much as we want to be as close to real life as we can be, DCS is a "for entertainment product" and is not for military use. This is a simulation game for having fun on. 

There are other products for professional use that wont be discussed here. 

thank you 

[Hiob]

4 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

.....as much as we want to be as close to real life as we can be, DCS is a "for entertainment product" and is not for military use. This is a simulation game for having fun on. 

This should be written in BOLD RED letters on the frontpage. 
To many people miss this critical distinction. 

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Hiob said:

This should be written in BOLD RED letters on the frontpage. 
To many people miss this critical distinction. 

We are all a passionate bunch and love the subject matter, but yes some can get a little caught up in it all  

[Hiob]

Let me rephrase my second sentence:
It is too often forgotten in the heat of passion. 

[SteelPig]

I'm not sure if it's really forgotten. 
I had a little mixed feelings regarding the F-35 as well. And I asked myself why. 
It was my dream to become a fighter pilot. But the little curve in my spine said "nope!". Ejection seats are off limits for me. So now I use DCS to come as close as I can to being a fighter pilot without being a fighter pilot. That's why a high level of authenticity really matters to me. 
And here I have a real basic problem. I can't check on what degree this or that system is like in the real jet. I have to trust that ED's policy regarding realism matches with what I want. And the F-35 can make you doubt a little. 

For myself, I've decided to trust ED here. In the first place I trust Wags here, cause I know from his own words that his motivation is very close to mine. So he will do all he can to ensure it will be as authentic as it can be. 


Sorry for the off-topic.

[BIGNEWY]

No problem, as long as you enjoy it and have fun.  

But we best get back on topic. Discussion of the EW 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

You didn't think they gonna simulate single radar pulses or EM waves going through the virtual sky, did you?

The way the things are going with the Phantom, I wouldn't be surprised if HB's next module actually tried exactly that... with all the performance woes that implies. I'm normally all for realism and detailed simulation, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, particularly in software development.

1 minute ago, skywalker22 said:

its not in bold, but its in white (at the bottom of the mission's loading screen)

I find that particular bit of boilerplate very amusing combined with the Huey, which proudly declares "Officially endorsed by Bell Textron" almost in the same breath.  Many of our modules are, in fact, licensed from the manufacturer, and hence the "non-affiliated" part is rather dubious.

[skywalker22]

  

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

This should be written in BOLD RED letters on the frontpage. 
To many people miss this critical distinction. 

It's not in bold, but it's in white (at the bottom of the mission's loading screen)

I don't care either if it simulates the real thing or not, I don't know how real thing even works exactly. Point is, that's beliveable, and that it makes sense; and that it works of course

[Hiob]

2 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

. Point is, that's beliveable, and that it makes sense; and that it works of course

Exactly this. And in this I am confident in EDs work ethics. 

[BIGNEWY]

folks please get back on topic or we can close this thread as derailed. 

thank you 

[Pilum]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

That's your problem. You don't see, because you may have knowledgle about EW but know nothing about believably simulating it in DCS on a bit higher level than it is implemented now. You didn't think they gonna simulate single radar pulses or EM waves going through the virtual sky, did you?

Yet devs says otherwise (4 posts above) and I take their word for it instead of some random internet guy. That's who you are - you're just the one who's not helping at all, standing by and saying: "Impossible, you can't do it, I know how, but won't tell".

First of all, you are the random internet guy here since you are the one who is anonymous while I'm not. I already posted a link featuring my name and my resume when it comes to competence in EW which I've worked professionally with for close to 15 years.

In addition, I've already explained why I don't "help" in an earlier post and which is the same reason I suspect many other professionals who have worked with classified systems stay away from doing so: And this is because one's knowledge base is a mix of open and classified knowledge and even if I were to refer to open sources, this would be because I have the knowledge base I have so it's a catch-22. And the only way to avoid the risk of divulging classified data is to stay away from it. Again, read my sig. It was not chosen at random.

But this is going nowhere so unless there are any more comments about my persona or my competence that need to be addressed then I will leave you here since it should by now be abundantly clear what my views are on the viability of modeling the EW systems of the F-35 for anyone who does not have classified access.

[Muchocracker]

That's absolutely fine. You can do that if you're not absolutely confident in giving information that's not classified. But then don't make absolute statements like you've been doing the entire discussion despite it being stated by others with evidence as well as the developers themselves that it's not impossible to do to a level that's sufficient for a game. 

[Ornithopter]

17 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

That's absolutely fine. You can do that if you're not absolutely confident in giving information that's not classified. But then don't make absolute statements like you've been doing the entire discussion despite it being stated by others with evidence as well as the developers themselves that it's not impossible to do to a level that's sufficient for a game. 

Muchocracker, LoL, you are trying to be reasonable again, and you know that hasn't really worked so far in this thread.  Pilum has said that he is leaving the thread anyway, having said the same thing over and over ad nauseum, each subsequent TL;DR post only different from the previous one by the increasing level of obnoxiousness and self-righteousness.  Most of the people on this thread seem to realize that despite us all wanting "realism", its ultimately a video game and that the developers will do their best with the public material available.

 

Edited April 17 by Ornithopter

[BIGNEWY]

Ok I think we are done in this thread for now.

As we get closer to release we will share more information 

thank you