Open-Source Data for ED

[Pavlin_33]

On 6/27/2025 at 12:42 PM, draconus said:

You say that like killing many enemies is not realistic. It is. But it also depends on the mission. Not a fault of DCS that you can simulate all kinds of battles. It's a good thing.

It's a shot in the foot.

People will rush to buy a "super laser", 'cause no one likes loosing. This will cause other side, that is getting hammered, to do the same and the sales will spike. After that it will turn into a F-35 simulator.

You can't really hide behind havig options, 'cause the people that run servers have the pressure of keeping them full - see paragraph above.

[draconus]

18 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

It's a shot in the foot.

People will rush to buy a "super laser", 'cause no one likes loosing. This will cause other side, that is getting hammered, to do the same and the sales will spike. After that it will turn into a F-35 simulator.

You can't really hide behind havig options, 'cause the people that run servers have the pressure of keeping them full - see paragraph above.

DCS was never driven by what happens in MP servers.

[Devil 505]

2 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

People will rush to buy a "super laser", 'cause no one likes loosing. This will cause other side, that is getting hammered, to do the same and the sales will spike. After that it will turn into a F-35 simulator.

You can't really hide behind havig options, 'cause the people that run servers have the pressure of keeping them full - see paragraph above.

I started this thread to provide constructive open-source data to ED if anyone finds it for the F-35.  I would like to keep it that way please so the community can assist ED if possible.  I do not want this thread closed down.  

I will say as a free content creator, myself, Kandy, and Zipper created the "Into The Jungle" Coop mission that many have run on a dedicated server as well as the ED servers.  We have multiple modules on the mission. Some aircraft far exceed others in performance.  The key is to provide each player with a role specific platform to their choosing.  Ours is a little unique where we do not have opposing red force players but randomized AI units. I have flown on those servers as well though as the red opponent and did not feel cheated.    

If there are concerns of an unfair advantage on public servers with a superior platform, I would highly encourage you to check out all the open virtual squadrons.  There are plenty that range from casual to mid-mil sim, to straight mil sim.  This would prevent the concerns you have of unfair advantages when playing on the opposing side.  You could also find some people you trust and set up your own server to fly with them.  That is what the boys and I do.

One more thing I feel I must point out because this is not the first time I have heard it, you are absolutely correct Blue Force units hold the advantage on the battlefield in DCS.  It is the same in real life, so in actuality, DCS is crushing it.  American Military superiority dominates the red aircraft, so it should not really be a shocker that the F-35 would join that party.  If you need real life examples, look at the Air-to-Air combat engagements from Desert storm/Deseret Shield going forward and convince me we have not dominated the skies since.  

One last keynote.  We have never been under any pressure of keeping a server full.  Anyone who hosts a server through ED or dedicated is not making money off of it and has no real incentive to keeping them full.  A lot of times, its way for friends to link up and fly and most do not go through the hassle of launching a dedicated server or password protecting their ED server.

I support the F-35 development and acknowledge it for what it is and will become in DCS.  I think you will be just fine continuing to find servers where you are not getting smoked left and right if you are a red force guy.  But if that becomes the case when the Lightning II is released, then welcome to 5th gen fighter reality against aging Russian equipment lol. 

Edited July 21 by Devil 505

[Pavlin_33]

23 hours ago, Devil 505 said:

American Military superiority dominates the red aircraft, so it should not really be a shocker that the F-35 would join that party.  If you need real life examples, look at the Air-to-Air combat engagements from Desert storm/Deseret Shield going forward and convince me we have not dominated the skies since.  

I would love to answer this one, but as you've said it might be going off topic, so I will politely skip doing that.

[okopanja]

On 7/22/2025 at 12:33 AM, Devil 505 said:

One last keynote.  We have never been under any pressure of keeping a server full.  Anyone who hosts a server through ED or dedicated is not making money off of it and has no real incentive to keeping them full.  A lot of times, its way for friends to link up and fly and most do not go through the hassle of launching a dedicated server or password protecting their ED server.

I believe F-35 in DCS will actually be great for MP. Looking forward to the succes of F-35 servers. It will attract lots of people not interested into realism, thus causing other servers to have more realism oriented average.

[NytHawk]

11 hours ago, okopanja said:

I believe F-35 in DCS will actually be great for MP. Looking forward to the succes of F-35 servers. It will attract lots of people not interested into realism, thus causing other servers to have more realism oriented average.

I don't see why F35s can't be implemented into modern multiplayer servers, not all of them are PVP, and Eurofighters will still stay highly competitive against luneburg lensed F35s. 
"Realism-oriented" servers in DCS just means LARPing minus all the annoying things that come with realistic engagements. 

[okopanja]

18 minutes ago, NytHawk said:

I don't see why F35s can't be implemented into modern multiplayer servers, not all of them are PVP, and Eurofighters will still stay highly competitive against luneburg lensed F35s. 
"Realism-oriented" servers in DCS just means LARPing minus all the annoying things that come with realistic engagements. 

Realistic in MP, involves matching the aircraft era as a baseline. If one side would have advantage or other some counter balance is another matter.

In this case you can match F-35 only to itself.

Alternative would be to take out the stealth properties as static config in ME. That way you could match it to EF.

 

[draconus]

On 7/23/2025 at 1:49 AM, okopanja said:

It will attract lots of people not interested into realism

False assumption

19 hours ago, okopanja said:

Realistic in MP, involves matching the aircraft era as a baseline. If one side would have advantage or other some counter balance is another matter.

19 hours ago, okopanja said:

Alternative would be to take out the stealth properties as static config in ME. That way you could match it to EF.

and this only confirms it. MP or not, you don't need any "matching", "balance" or nerfing for realistic representation of air operations with F-35.

[okopanja]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

False assumption

and this only confirms it. MP or not, you don't need any "matching", "balance" or nerfing for realistic representation of air operations with F-35.

It's not the assumption is the experience gathered witnessing various balancing moves in MP servers over several years. One does not need to realize that majority of red players will not accept to fight stealthy all seeing F-35 with no analogue on their side. Hence, the only realistic solution is F-35 vs F-35, just like we now have F-16 vs F-16. 

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, okopanja said:

One does not need to realize that majority of red players will not accept to fight stealthy all seeing F-35 with no analogue on their side.

Of course, it's not meant for those players because it'd be no fun to them. The F-35 servers will probably be PvE and hopefully with some new Su-57 AI. Although there may be some slots left for MiG-29, Su-27 or JF-17 for anyone willing to face a challenge. I'm sure many ace redfor players will take a chance to take down the F-35

[Furiz]

On 7/23/2025 at 1:28 PM, okopanja said:

Realistic in MP, involves matching the aircraft era as a baseline. If one side would have advantage or other some counter balance is another matter

In this case you can match F-35 only to itself.

Some war happened very recently which involved F-35, among other modern fighters, vs very old US and Russian fighters that were operated by another country.

So the idea of matching aircraft era to recreate real world conflict can go down the drain

[Pavlin_33]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

Some war happened very recently which involved F-35, among other modern fighters, vs very old US and Russian fighters that were operated by another country.

So the idea of matching aircraft era to recreate real world conflict can go down the drain

Problem of RL conflicts is that those nations that you have mentioned don't have "cojones" to attack anyone that can match them in air combat, so yeah F-35 vs "flying trash cans" is historically correct. This does not mean, however, that it's ok to have the same situation in a sim.

Also stealth aircraft are not so stealthy to long wave radio emissions, and I am not sure that DCS takes this into account.

[Furiz]

12 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Problem of RL conflicts is that those nations that you have mentioned don't have "cojones" to attack anyone that can match them in air combat, so yeah F-35 vs "flying trash cans" is historically correct. This does not mean, however, that it's ok to have the same situation in a sim.

Them having "cojones" or not is not the topic here. 

Reality is that there is no balance in real world. So F-35 or EF2000 or any modern jet can fit in any scenario.

Edited 19 hours ago by Furiz

[Pavlin_33]

6 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Them having "cojones" or not is not the topic here. 

Reality is that there is no balance in real world. So F-35 or EF2000 or any modern jet can fit in any scenario.

Flying RL combat aircraft is no fun, 'cause you could die and all that stuff. Flying a sim is, because we get to pretend to be flying the real stuff without any of the risks/constraints of the real world.

I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that any disparity in air-frames could affect the sim negatively, when it comes to multi-player bam-bam arena.

I also don't know when this "no balance" argument became an integral part of the sim. LOMAC started as a perfectly balanced platform, but I guess this got lost somewhere along the way.

[okopanja]

17 minutes ago, Furiz said:

Them having "cojones" or not is not the topic here. 

Reality is that there is no balance in real world. So F-35 or EF2000 or any modern jet can fit in any scenario.

J-10C would be very OK for everything but F-35/F-22. It even has excellent combat record.

[Furiz]

9 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that any disparity in air-frames could affect the sim negatively, when it comes to multi-player bam-bam arena.

Off course PvP to be any fun requires balance, but simulation doesn't, it only requires to be as realistic as it can be.

 

11 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

I also don't know when this "no balance" argument became an integral part of the sim.

Cause simmers wanted realism, and that doesn't include balance 

[Pribs86]

On 7/24/2025 at 5:27 AM, okopanja said:

It's not the assumption is the experience gathered witnessing various balancing moves in MP servers over several years. One does not need to realize that majority of red players will not accept to fight stealthy all seeing F-35 with no analogue on their side. Hence, the only realistic solution is F-35 vs F-35, just like we now have F-16 vs F-16. 

You also need to consider pilot skill. Just because you can fly it doesn't mean you can do it well or even know and can manage all the systems on board. I get shot down in the F-16 ALL the time, by cold war era jets no less.

[Czar66]

On 7/24/2025 at 7:27 AM, okopanja said:

It's not the assumption is the experience gathered witnessing various balancing moves in MP servers over several years. One does not need to realize that majority of red players will not accept to fight stealthy all seeing F-35 with no analogue on their side. Hence, the only realistic solution is F-35 vs F-35, just like we now have F-16 vs F-16. 

The blame on this lies on the server/mission creator, not ED.

[Czar66]

5 hours ago, Furiz said:

Cause simmers wanted realism, and that doesn't include balance 

That's the bottom line.

A few people forget there is a lot of players that don't touch on PvP where crafted missions, dynamic campaigns, mission generators and co-op vs AI far exceeds enjoyment on hoping onto a server that once again is at noon, few clouds and is constantly unbalanced by player numbers let alone machinery specs.

Kudos to ED to make an F-35 if it is their wish to do so.

Many will flock towards it in many scenarios solo and with their friends in co-op.

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, Czar66 said:

The blame on this lies on the server/mission creator, not ED.

I think I never mentioned blame here and I feel many believe my comments were anti F-35. 

It's not the hate, its more of an a critique on how the ED's DCS ecosystem is built.

To understand this better lets consider how the MP servers work. 

To play this in MP with reasonable level of authenticity, you need both sides if the server/mission intends to have healthy population.

In PvE this does not have worry about this. You can happily have 60 F-35 racing  each other to kill more Mig-21s and other lower aircraft, as long as you spawn enough of opponents to keep them happy. There is certainly a customer base exactly for this kind of level of commitment. 

In case of PvP this assumes that both sides have equal chances of winning the game. F-35 will not have the counterpart which means that the server will have unhealthy and unbalanced population, unless server owners bring F-35 on both sides.

Historically even the most famous servers did struggle with maintaining the healthy populations. After a while one side would simply stop playing, and almost always the server owners go for introduction of PvE elements. At the end these servers stay with low count of players only to deplete completely when a new server with healthier and larger population arrives. This is how practically most of famous servers died over the years. 

Now some may mention the skilled players may try their luck with low tier aircraft. In the wast majority of cases they will not do this, keep in mind that they are actually the smartest players around. 

Edited 5 hours ago by okopanja

[Pavlin_33]

9 hours ago, Czar66 said:

The blame on this lies on the server/mission creator, not ED.

As I've mentioned earlier MP servers don't exist in a vaccum and there is a lot of pressure from online community towards mission designers and admins.

I don't like it, but it is a fact of life. People want to be aces and shoot lasers, so that they can land on home plate for tea and medals.

If the sim offered F-35 along with Su-57 (not that it's possible), this would make more sense. No one's gonna fly a target drone for shooting practise.

[Silver_Dragon]

52 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

As I've mentioned earlier MP servers don't exist in a vaccum and there is a lot of pressure from online community towards mission designers and admins.

I don't like it, but it is a fact of life. People want to be aces and shoot lasers, so that they can land on home plate for tea and medals.

If the sim offered F-35 along with Su-57 (not that it's possible), this would make more sense. No one's gonna fly a target drone for shooting practise.

We're back to the same thing... "balance" is what's wanted when no war has any balance. Just look at WW2... if we look at the Axis planes versus the Allies, it's uneven. The same thing happens if someone wants a Korean or Vietnam scenario... MP servers will start putting equipment outside that era just to maintain "balance," so that's not the ED problem.

And about the F-35, same as always. It's not ED's fault that certain governments can put you in jail for trying to make certain aircraft "red." ED and certain third parties are already very careful about what is and isn't done in DCS World.

[EricJ]

7 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

We're back to the same thing... "balance" is what's wanted when no war has any balance. Just look at WW2... if we look at the Axis planes versus the Allies, it's uneven. The same thing happens if someone wants a Korean or Vietnam scenario... MP servers will start putting equipment outside that era just to maintain "balance," so that's not the ED problem.

And about the F-35, same as always. It's not ED's fault that certain governments can put you in jail for trying to make certain aircraft "red." ED and certain third parties are already very careful about what is and isn't done in DCS World.

I mean I never coded for DCS, but what little I saw when me and SkateZilla worked together years ago, there's a lot you can and can't do. It makes no sense going to jail to provide players with a real experience. I mean it would be nice, but i think they care about such things. Even for another game I play, I have to balance what I can do with the files, and what I have to keep to myself as well.

[Czar66]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

It's not the hate, its more of an a critique on how the ED's DCS ecosystem is built.

To understand this better lets consider how the MP servers work. 

To play this in MP with reasonable level of authenticity, you need both sides if the server/mission intends to have healthy population.

In PvE this does not have worry about this. You can happily have 60 F-35 racing  each other to kill more Mig-21s and other lower aircraft, as long as you spawn enough of opponents to keep them happy. There is certainly a customer base exactly for this kind of level of commitment. 

I view this differently also, not saying you're wrong.

About the later part: I think PvE environments, at least the ones I'm attracted to (dynamic campaigns, mission generators etc), are not target rich that badly. Taking down as many aircraft you can instead of working with micro and macro strategies are much less rewarding for me personally.
When I mentioned PvE-Co-op, it was more about strategy and tactics instead of killing spree against AI.

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

I think I never mentioned blame here and I feel many believe my comments were anti F-35. 

My bad, bud.

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

Now some may mention the skilled players may try their luck with low tier aircraft. In the wast majority of cases they will not do this, keep in mind that they are actually the smartest players around. 

I remember early MiG-21 days. Hoping into that thing against F-15Cs and other fast movers was a thrill I think extinct. It was quite an event.

I'm personally glad I got to experience Flaming Cliffs 3 golden era where you had Eagles vs Fulcrums and Flankers on 104th servers, after that, everything became weird with Hornets vs Vipers all the time.

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

As I've mentioned earlier MP servers don't exist in a vaccum and there is a lot of pressure from online community towards mission designers and admins.

I don't like it, but it is a fact of life. People want to be aces and shoot lasers, so that they can land on home plate for tea and medals.

Don't we all?
I believe that mission designers should commit to their 'artwork' and not external pressure as the later is the definition of 'artwork' death.
The best type of missions and PvP environments came alive from the few to the many, not the inverse, imo.

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

If the sim offered F-35 along with Su-57 (not that it's possible), this would make more sense. No one's gonna fly a target drone for shooting practise.

Is down to the mission designer. If they put the 35 in, their loss on the mission breaking and being unpopular.

ED has already stated more red stuff coming after the 29A if that's a success in sales as that team needs to make revenue by itself.
There are also external factors that we don't know all about. So I'd rather not worry about PvP balance as hoping for anything remotely close outside Flaming Cliffs is in vain. I'll stick to PvE and enjoying the sights that made me stick to DCS in a constant basis for 3 years straight now.

Sorry to derail into a large post and the thread is not about this.
All of you have a nice/blessed/delightful week and enjoy what you like the most.