DCS F-35A

[jctrnacty]

A lot of people are not negative, there just being critical and realistic.

And once again, i have nothing against Kinney, nor his company.

I am very surprised by the marketing terms used for the module though.

 

True, i couldnt say it better.

[Rotorhead]

A lot of people are not negative, there just being critical and realistic.

 

Agreed. Those angry nay-sayers are just a tiny fraction of our (mostly) friendly community. Of course they're also much more noisy than the rest, which makes them appear stronger in numbers than they actually are.

 

All I hope for is that KI and all other 3rd party devs will take this failure as a lesson how to not promote a DCS module, and will take a more sensible (and succesfull) approach next time.

[Silver_Dragon]

Or you can create the opposite effect. You can put fear about future projects of the 3rd parties who want to put on the table. Now they will face the refusal of the community however small are the detractors. Will you risk your project is criticized out of existence as has happened with KS as the F-35A?. It is a very bad publicity for DCS: W.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Silver_Dragon

[Mike Busutil]

In the end the negative comments don't really matter. Kinney interactive already said "THE F-35 IS COMING TO DCS"

[159th_Viper]

The saddest thing about the whole saga is that, had it been marketed as a F-35 module for DCS World, then it would have sold like hot-cakes. Instead, it was marketed as a DCS-standard module, hence the failure.

 

DCS-standard? Not in a million years, unless someone has shifted the goalposts. And you want to know what's even worse? Everyone, myself definitely included, would have been more than happy to throw money at it for a F-35 module that was midway fidelity between Lockon and DCS.

 

F-35 at DCS-standard? Having been accorded the honour and priviledge of being part of the ED test team, I know more than most what it takes to get a product to DCS standards. F-35? I cringe at attempts to insult my intelligence......Midway module? Eminently reasonable.

 

We'll see what the future brings.

[NineLine]

I have to agree, I think they came out swinging for the fences, which is great, but maybe a little too much straight out of the gates. I still hope they get there, but their goals are lofty... I think they need to tweak and adjust and in the long run they will generate a great following here if they pull it all off.

 

The saddest thing about the whole saga is that, had it been marketed as a F-35 module for DCS World, then it would have sold like hot-cakes. Instead, it was marketed as a DCS-standard module, hence the failure.

 

DCS-standard? Not in a million years, unless someone has shifted the goalposts. And you want to know what's even worse? Everyone, myself definitely included, would have been more than happy to throw money at it for a F-35 module that was midway fidelity between Lockon and DCS.

 

F-35 at DCS-standard? Having been accorded the honour and priviledge of being part of the ED test team, I know more than most what it takes to get a product to DCS standards. F-35? I cringe at attempts to insult my intelligence......Midway module? Eminently reasonable.

 

We'll see what the future brings.

[Cedaway]

.....

F-35 at DCS-standard? Having been accorded the honour and priviledge of being part of the ED test team, I know more than most what it takes to get a product to DCS standards. F-35? I cringe at attempts to insult my intelligence......Midway module? Eminently reasonable.

 

We'll see what the future brings.

 

I'm not being part of tester team. I'm now DCS fan for some years now and I'm OK with you regarding "DCS standards".

I've made search through the forum to have a definition of this "DCS Standards". I don't find it, or not accurate.

I know that the proposed module must be checked by the ED team itself, it must have 6DOF cockpit and a high detailed and accurate model.

But what else? What about the systems, avionics, Flight Model,...?

I found that the degree of fidelity is up to the 3rd party dev himself.

 

Here is the last definition I found for "What is DCS?"

 

So, when we call for "DCS Standards", what are we really talking about?

We all have an idea, of course. But which one is the good one?

Can someone light my bulb?

[159th_Falcon]

So by that reasoning, a flying train can be a DCS module as long as it has 6DOF and an accurate 3D model?

:lol::lol::lol:

 

To me, at least an accurate advanced flight model should be on the list to.

[Cedaway]

So by that reasoning, a flying train can be a DCS module as long as it has 6DOF and an accurate 3D model?

:lol::lol::lol:

 

To me, at least an accurate advanced flight model should be on the list to.

 

That's why I'm asking the question... AFM is never mentionned (or am I blind?)

A quote from Wags, defining DCS:

 

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation. DCS started with the Ka-50 and A-10C, but has recently grown to also include the P-51D Mustang and, with Combined Arms, a ground command and control tactical warfare component. Future products from The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics in the DCS line are in development and will includes partner products like the UH-1H "Huey", MiG-21bis "Fishbed", T-2 "Buckeye", BAE "Hawk", and Mi-8MT-V2 "Hip".

 

The overall "simulation operating system" is termed DCS World and is a free program that includes a free Su-25T for the player to fly. All DCS products will plug into DCS World as unique modules within the same software installation. DCS products will not be limited to aircraft, but will include maps, missions, campaigns, environment objects, weapons, vehicles and ships. We even hope to look into a train simulation component in the future!

 

Partner products to DCS are supported by ED and there are already several qualified 3rd party teams creating new aircraft that will plug into DCS World. In these cases we leave it up to the developer to decide the level of systems fidelity, but we do expect certain "DCS Standards" to be maintained such as detailed and accurate models and cockpits with 6 DOF view control.

 

We are also developing "DCS Flaming Cliffs" titles as modules for DCS. These aircraft include highly detailed models, 6 DOF capable cockpits, and advanced flight models. However, they have the same level of cockpit functionality as our Lock On series (a less complex and shallower learning curve). Upcoming DCS Flaming Cliffs aircraft modules include the A-10A, Su-25, F-15C, and Su-27.

[159th_Viper]

So, when we call for "DCS Standards", what are we really talking about?

 

Objective example?

 

Start with the DCS: Mig-21Bis.

[NineLine]

To me, at least an accurate advanced flight model should be on the list to.

 

Based on whose opinion? :D

[Cedaway]

Objective example?

 

Start with the DCS: Mig-21Bis.

 

Yes, A-10C, P-51d, Ka-50, UH-1h, Mig-21bis, Hawk,... have or will have all that in common. And that's awesome. BUT, does ED can approve a module as 'DCS: aircraft' title if it has no AFM, highly detailed avionics,... ?

Without a proper definition, it's an open door.

There is a need for such mid-detailed aircraft, of course. Maybe called differently, like 'Aircraft X for DCS World' or else.

Presently, there seems to be a 'grey zone'.

A dev produce an aircraft with superb highly detailed and accurate 6 DOF cockpit with an outstanding exterior but has SFM and 'FC derived' avionics. So what? DCS title or not?

[Echo38]

A dev produce an aircraft with superb highly detailed and accurate 6 DOF cockpit with an outstanding exterior but has SFM and 'FC derived' avionics. So what? DCS title or not?

 

I was under the impression that "the DCS standard" meant, by definition, AFM & full 'pit. Guess maybe that changed, but to a lot of us, that's still what it means. By this standard, the only true DCS titles released so far are the Ka-50, A-10C, and P-51D. The beta Huey, too, if you count modules not made by E.D. Everything else so far has SFM and/or simplified 'pit, ruling it out.

[159th_Falcon]

Based on whose opinion? :D

No one's. An advanced flight model would be a matter of fact and hard data.

Not opinions like, i think the F35A's climb rate is .....

 

Ofcourse, between reality and simulation PC tweaks would need to be made, preferably by using pilots who are currently still flying the aircraft being modelled.

(as in the cases of KA-50, A-10C, P-51D and the UH-1H, the F35A isn't even in service yet)

[NineLine]

What I meant though is, who is to judge that, these are things we dont see or know, what does a 3rd Party have to submit to get the DCS tag, certainly there has to be some sort of proof that a 3rd Party can pull of what they wish to do in order for ED to give them the tag...

 

No one's. An advanced flight model would be a matter of fact and hard data.

Not opinions like, i think the F35A's climb rate is .....

 

Ofcourse, between reality and simulation PC tweaks would need to be made, preferably by using pilots who are currently still flying the aircraft being modelled.

(as in the cases of KA-50, A-10C, P-51D and the UH-1H, the F35A isn't even in service yet)

[159th_Viper]

A dev produce an aircraft with superb highly detailed and accurate 6 DOF cockpit with an outstanding exterior but has SFM and 'FC derived' avionics. So what? DCS title or not?

 

A DCS-standard module?

 

No.

 

A module for DCS World?

 

Yes.

 

I was under the impression that "the DCS standard" meant, by definition, AFM & full 'pit. Guess maybe that changed, but to a lot of us, that's still what it means. By this standard, the only true DCS titles released so far are the Ka-50, A-10C, and P-51D. The beta Huey, too, if you count modules not made by E.D. Everything else so far has SFM and/or simplified 'pit, ruling it out.

 

Exactly.

 

Clinging onto the fact that the above sentiments are not specifically and in writing endorsed by ED is also an exercise in semantics. It's what we as consumers expect from the products on offer. Don't dress mutton up as lamb and expect me to be happy about it. Offer me mutton, be upfront about it being mutton and I'll buy it. Give it to me in a lamb-wrapper and I'm gonna shove it up sideways :P

[Cedaway]

...Don't dress mutton up as lamb and expect me to be happy about it. Offer me mutton, be upfront about it being mutton and I'll buy it. Give it to me in a lamb-wrapper and I'm gonna shove it up sideways :P

 

Scottish proverb? :music_whistling: ;)

[Python]

Don't dress mutton up as lamb and expect me to be happy about it. Offer me mutton, be upfront about it being mutton and I'll buy it.

 

Me too, I always did prefer a greasy burger to a steak :thumbup:

[NineLine]

Its also a matter of customer perception as well, the fact that many people cant see them being able to get enough data to simulate the F-35 to the degree they think is acceptable. SO if someone where to come out and say they were going to make a DCS: IL-2, general perception might be that this is a plane from the 40's, surely nothing is classified on this aircraft anymore and it would be easy to create a P-51D/A-10C level module of this aircraft, when in fact that certain required data maybe nearly impossible to get anymore.

 

Perception will be a huge block, specially if you want to come out of the gates with a large kickstarter campaign... I would love to see a campaign for something like an F-16, as the perception would be that it would be much easier to model....

 

It's what we as consumers expect from the products on offer. Don't dress mutton up as lamb and expect me to be happy about it. Offer me mutton, be upfront about it being mutton and I'll buy it. Give it to me in a lamb-wrapper and I'm gonna shove it up sideways :P

[159th_Falcon]

I have always happily deferred judgement on what constitutes a DCS product by what is for sale on my DCS World home screen.

 

There's an F-15 on there with a gorgeous 3D cockpit and my friends and I think it's awesome.

There's a Tunguska on there which is a huge amount of fun to drive about in shooting at your buddies in A-10s.

Neither of these fit the realism criteria some of you are demanding.

 

I am really looking forward to seeing an F-35 pop up there too someday and will buy it the first chance I get.

 

DCS World is just the package the goodies get delivered in.

 

The SU-33 is also flyable in DCS World. But everyone will agree it aint an DCS fidelity product.

 

The current F-15 isn't a DCS fidelity product either, nor is the Tunguska.

 

There all available in DCS World though, which is fine. Cause they are not being marketed pretending to be something there not. (or cannot be)

[PFunk1606688187]

....

You just seem to reply with "its possible". Anything is possible, but I don't accept the plausibility of its success next to the available data. I do believe that many people would welcome a half assed project because they want their 5th Gen candy.

 

Some people suggest that receiving any project with negativity would discourage people from making more projects. I hope so! Good consumers ask questions and say what they think. If a little negativity on the forums drives a developer away then I suspect they were never up to it anyway. The last thing you want is DCS looking like a soft target for easy money. I think this F-35 pitch was as close as we might see to that. It was, as Falcon (I think) said, an unrealistic sales pitch for what they were promising.

 

By this logic, any module won't be accurate enough if the devs of it never flew one.

 

In my opinion if you can't get a hold of anybody who's ever flown it to tell you if you've got your numbers right, then it isn't.

 

Devs dont have to fly it, but somebody who has needs to be around for a little Q and A.

[Wolf Rider]

You just seem to reply with "its possible". Anything is possible, but I don't accept the plausibility of its success next to the available data. I do believe that many people would welcome a half assed project because they want their 5th Gen candy.

 

Some people suggest that receiving any project with negativity would discourage people from making more projects. I hope so! Good consumers ask questions and say what they think. If a little negativity on the forums drives a developer away then I suspect they were never up to it anyway. The last thing you want is DCS looking like a soft target for easy money. I think this F-35 pitch was as close as we might see to that. It was, as Falcon (I think) said, an unrealistic sales pitch for what they were promising.

 

 

 

Bingo!

[Exorcet]

You just seem to reply with "its possible". Anything is possible, but I don't accept the plausibility of its success next to the available data. I do believe that many people would welcome a half assed project because they want their 5th Gen candy.

 

Not only that it's possible, but methods exist to do what needs to be done. And no, not everything is possible, you can't simulate an aircraft from nothing. Thankfully the F-35 does not have this issue, though what info there is is limited.

 

Some people suggest that receiving any project with negativity would discourage people from making more projects. I hope so! Good consumers ask questions and say what they think.

Very true. This is something I stand by and always have. There is no need to settle for something subpar.

 

The last thing you want is DCS looking like a soft target for easy money. I think this F-35 pitch was as close as we might see to that. It was, as Falcon (I think) said, an unrealistic sales pitch for what they were promising.

Not even close. I'd have thought from the beginning that the issue of classified data would be on everyone's mind. On top of that, the project is in the early the stages. All I saw from this thread is a F-35 in DCS World, presumably with AFM and clickable cockpit. Final judgement reserved for the actual release. It is what is, I won't expect anything more than what can be delivered.

[Boberro]

Maybe only I think this but such classics like F-16, MiG-27, Su-22, F-4 would've been accepted much more warmly, than sci-fi F-35, promoted to be DCS lvl where practically it couldn't be.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Boberro

[Hellfire257]

True. If it had been DCS: F-4 I would've wept tears of joy.